Paddy Jackson in racist picture scandal

Jeez, this is up there with the 2011 England team's World Cup debacle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28259305

Blacking up is politically incorrect enough as it is, wearing chains and hand cuffs is downright offensive.

Idiotic and I hope he apologises- and means it.

I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

I think the chains are fairly offensive. I dont see the problem with putting the makeup on really. There is a famous Eddie Murphy skit called Mr White where he puts white makeup on and goes shopping. I found it really funny and not particularly offensive. Is it really racist?

I wouldnt do it myself as I know it would probably attract the wrong sort of attention but is it really that bad?

Tend to agree with guns. The chains and stuff are idiotic but in terms of the makeup it's a non story. Either way he should have known better than to put the picture up.

The body make-up you see all five of those lads in is possibly offensive to some, but not really that bad. Reminds me a bit of in the RWC Aussie fans dressing up as Radike Samo. Fair enough.

But the black and white minstrel make-up Paddy is wearing is dodgy, the chains even dodgier. Thats the issue. Have no real issue with people if they are going to go to a fancy dress party as a specific person whose skin is a different colour, them putting on make-up. But Paddy has the black body make-up, then the black and white minstrel make up over it and then the chains as well?

Wtf was he thinking? Ulster Rugby have apologised. Paddy should also sincerely apologise. Then that would be the matter put to bed.

I suppose its as offensive as you personally want it to be. Personally, I think that it was rather stupid, you don't need to be that bright to realise that putting a chain aroound your neck and blacking up is going to offend a lot of people.

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

  

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Portraying people in a demeaning, stereotypical way is racism.

Sin é wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Portraying people in a demeaning, stereotypical way is racism.

Calm down, calm down....Eh? Eh?

One of those "good idea at the time" things that might have been better left out of the public domain.
And seriously if you don't think that blacking up and putting on chains is at the least slightly dodgy....lucky it wasn't an English player the "professionally offended" brigade over here would probably hound them out of the game permanently.

It reminds me of the Prince Harry Nazi uniform - a young guy getting overexcited and wanting to impress his older mates with the most controversial costume possible and going a bit too far. No idea if he's racist as I don't know the bloke, but race is one of the last taboos so I assume he wanted to push the envelope costume wise.

None-the-less this guy is getting paid a lot of money, represents his province and country so should think about the effects his actions have. Some may say he shouldn't have shared it online, I don't think he should have done it at all.

Rugby in the UK has a big enough perception problem when it comes to perceived elitism, so this kind of stuff isn't helpful.

This is disgusting. It seems sport still has a serious amount of work to do regarding education and racism.

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

It's always a funny topic - racism - because it has so many loopholes that arguments about 'racism' fall through.

People talk now of Jackson dressing up in a skit-pic as being potentially 'racist' and yet forget that a year ago, the same eejit (and that's what Jackson seems to be - a kid having a social-networking juvenile good time before maturing) had a video out where he fooled around doing rap songs with his pal Simon Zebo.

Racist my arse.  

But keep up the ritual of killing off anything that sniffs of non-PCism.  If we keep going at banning words, and banning jokes, and banning intent, and banning parties, and banning eejitry, then we will indeed have the Perfect World we all seek in about 12,000 years time.  I look forward to that day and I'm glad I won't be around to enjoy it.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

Scary!?

What's really scary is the way the media target innocent people just to create a story! They're disgusting individuals in the media who turn a blind eye to the activities of Max Clifford and Jimmy Savilles of this world.

So excuse me if I don't condem someone and tar them as a racist without having any evidence to do so.

Jesus H Christ

I would like to know the reasons behind the dressing up, before judging it as racist.
I have seen the pics before, and seem to remember one which showed some Ethiopian folk standing in the background. They were smiling, and didn't seem to have an issue with it. If the dressing up was intended to be racially offensive I don't think those in the background would be smiling.
I did think it strange at the time, and, without explanation, ill advised to post those pics, as there are those who will judge them as racist simply at a glance.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Jesus H Christ

Watch it...you're being Religiously Offensive now, Chunky

profitius wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

Scary!?  

What's really scary is the way the media target innocent people just to create a story! They're disgusting individuals in the media who turn a blind eye to the activities of Max Clifford and Jimmy Savilles of this world.

So excuse me if I don't condem someone and tar them as a racist without having any evidence to do so.

What on Earth are you talking about? How is the media targeting him and tarring him racist? It says Ulster have apologised, the photo's been taken down and someone from ASCONI said it was out of order. Hardly a witch hunt.

Edit: and I didn't see the word racist once.

HammerofThunor wrote:

profitius wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

Scary!?  

What's really scary is the way the media target innocent people just to create a story! They're disgusting individuals in the media who turn a blind eye to the activities of Max Clifford and Jimmy Savilles of this world.

So excuse me if I don't condem someone and tar them as a racist without having any evidence to do so.

What on Earth are you talking about? How is the media targeting him and tarring him racist? It says Ulster have apologised, the photo's been taken down and someone from ASCONI said it was out of order. Hardly a witch hunt.

Hammer, I think profitius is responding distinctly to Chunky's "Scary" comments, which depending on how you read them appear either melodramatic or melodramatic.....

Peter Jackson in Racist Picture Scandal

Once.

profitius wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

Scary!?  

What's really scary is the way the media target innocent people just to create a story! They're disgusting individuals in the media who turn a blind eye to the activities of Max Clifford and Jimmy Savilles of this world.

So excuse me if I don't condem someone and tar them as a racist without having any evidence to do so.

"The media" isn't an organisation. It's a collection of people, some experts on a subject, some whose opinions are valued (be it by their editor or the public). Their isn't a conspiracy to only attack certain things, whilst wilfully ignoring others. They report things that are relevant. This isn't some unqualified attack on him. He shared it on Twitter. He's an international rugby player mocking another race and slavery.

Using the clearly more heinous crimes of Max Clifford and Jimmy Saville to play down a totally different, more minor incident, is the equivalent of toting out the Nazi's in every argument. Their guilt has no impact on this, they're different things.

I also find it interesting that you say "the media target innocent people just to create a story". So you don't think he's done ANYTHING wrong at all? You think making light of one of the darkest periods and shames in world history is OK? He went out to be offensive, or else why wear the chains, so he deserves some vilification.

HammerofThunor wrote:

profitius wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

Scary!?  

What's really scary is the way the media target innocent people just to create a story! They're disgusting individuals in the media who turn a blind eye to the activities of Max Clifford and Jimmy Savilles of this world.

So excuse me if I don't condem someone and tar them as a racist without having any evidence to do so.

What on Earth are you talking about? How is the media targeting him and tarring him racist? It says Ulster have apologised, the photo's been taken down and someone from ASCONI said it was out of order. Hardly a witch hunt.

Edit: and I didn't see the word racist once.

Firstly by the fact the media has made it news. Secondly,
Ulster had to apologise. Thirdly, the title of the thread shows how its perceived.

I can't believe some posters are defending Jackson on this.

It beggars belief.

Fly, was that the original title and they changed it? Because I can't see it now. Or are you talking about a separate story about the director of Braindead?

To all those condemning the media 'looking for racism' or 'PC born mad'...

I don't think Paddy is racist, but that doesn't mean he should act in this way and it doesn't mean he shouldn't be made to answer for it. It's insensitive and very gauche but all that is needed is an apology. He's not facing any criminal charges. Nothing has been banned. He won't suffer any serious repercussions.

We come on here and we say it's a bad thing to boo kickers, it's a bad thing to show disrespect to opposition fans and those who call people up on their bad behaviour in grounds are applauded for it.

Why is it a bad thing then to pull up someone on dressing in a way which is disrespectful and insensitive to some? Isn't that just the same as showing disrespect to opposition fans, opposition players? Isn't it worse- to show disrespect for an entire ethnic group? If Paddy Jackson wore a costume making fun of fans of Munster or someone he'd be slaughtered on here for it. If he tweeted something uncomplimentary about Saracens fans we would castigate him for breaking the unspoken rules of mutual respect in rugby union. But if he wears a costume making light of slavery and historical racism in the UK media- well, thats PC gone mad to call him up on that.

Lets be clear- he's wearing make-up specifically designed to resemble that of the Black and White minstrel show, which portrayed blacks as less intelligent than whites and perpetuated negative racial stereotypes. He's wearing chains, which gives the impression he's referring to slavery. If you are from a black background there is a significant chance you will find these allusions hurtful and offensive. The respectful thing to do, the most respectful way to behave, is to simply not do it in the first place.

Despite all that I don't believe that Paddy Jackson is racist and I don't believe that he meant to hurt anybody, he was 20 when that picture was taken and it's merely the stupidity of youth. But if you dress like that you've no-one to blame but yourself if someone is offended and thats up to you to make right. And hopefully learn a lesson about it too.

The same values of respect that make me shake hands with opposition fans at the end of a game and not criticise the referee make me condemn this photo. Northern Ireland has been beset with a variety of racism scandals over the past few months and is one of the least tolerant places in the UK. My love of Ulster Rugby is based on how it seeks to include everyone regardless of religion and be a force for good in the community. That needs to include people of every ethnic background who are included in a rugby family, based on respect. Respect for others regardless of whether they are opposition fans, from a rival country or of a different sexuality, gender or race. For me, this is a violation of the ethos of the club and it certainly merits an apology from player and the club. A real, heartfelt apology. Not a PR arse covering exercise.

madmaccas wrote: He went out to be offensive, or else why wear the chains, so he deserves some vilification.

Did he?  Did you ask him?  He may have offended.  Certainly he offended the group that protested but was his desire when dressing up to offend?
That's simply your explanation of what you think.  It's not a fact.  If it was a fact I wouldn't defend the eejit who seems to love joking it up on his social networking young and busy life.

Everyone look back into their lives of silly schit they got up to or things they might have said as a joke in private - not one person here can throw a stone when remembering back their 'pristine' lives.

profitius wrote:Firstly by the fact the media has made it news.

The reported on what happened. That's kind of what they do. It may have passed you by but there's not a lot going on rugby wise at the moment.

Secondly, Ulster had to apologise.

Well they didn't to. They chose to. Perhaps because they felt the action were inappropriate. It's generally well known that 'blacking up' is considered offensive by some and the chains stuff was just plain stupid (and has nothing to do with the Ethiopian Olympic team).

Thirdly, the title of the thread shows how its perceived.

Well yes, some perceive actions like this as racist. And actions like this can be racist. I fail to see how the media portrayed it as racist though.

What makes it Black and White minstrel make up, Notch?

Notch     

I thought the Minstrels had white around their eyes and mouth? So it doesn't look like that.

SecretFly wrote:

madmaccas wrote: He went out to be offensive, or else why wear the chains, so he deserves some vilification.

Did he?  Did you ask him?  He may have offended.  Certainly he offended the group that protested but was his desire when dressing up to offend?
That's simply your explanation of what you think.  It's not a fact.  If it was a fact I wouldn't defend the eejit who seems to love joking it up on his social networking young and busy life.

Everyone look back into their lives of silly schit they got up to or things they might have said as a joke in private - not one person here can throw a stone when remembering back their 'pristine' lives.

Of course none of us are whiter than white - I have tried to be even handed in what I've said - pointing out that he is young and it was probably just overexcitement.

As far as his intentions are concerned I don't think it's too much of a stretch to surmise that he wore chains to push the dress theme to the limit of taste do you? He obviously didn't intend to offend black people, it would have been to shock his teammates. That may be conjecture, but I think that's the best case scenario.

madmaccas wrote:

Of course none of us are whiter than white.

Paddy Jackson certainly isn't

HammerofThunor wrote:Fly, was that the original title and they changed it? Because I can't see it now. Or are you talking about a separate story about the director of Braindead?

What are you talking about, Hammer? The story or the article? The article isn't the story simply because it's BBC and we're meant to somehow traditionally see 'News' coming from 'official' sources as the only means by which we should judge the Story.

The Article didn't use the word 'Racist' therefore nobody has a right to attach that implication to it?
Wrong. The article is only an Article - the story is evolving and we're all part of that as we type. You make the mistake of thinking we here aren't part of the media. We are. We are public words typed onto a Public Network - we're pubished opinions that this site can be legally held accountable for. So yes, you have seen the word Racist - you've seen it written large on this Thread Heading - in public, on a public network - the media. Profitius can reply accordingly to the implication.

madmaccas wrote:

profitius wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

profitius wrote:I think the media loves to invent racism whenever they can.

Flippin 'eck.

Your comment is scary. Really scary.

Scary!?  

What's really scary is the way the media target innocent people just to create a story! They're disgusting individuals in the media who turn a blind eye to the activities of Max Clifford and Jimmy Savilles of this world.

So excuse me if I don't condem someone and tar them as a racist without having any evidence to do so.

"The media" isn't an organisation. It's a collection of people, some experts on a subject, some whose opinions are valued (be it by their editor or the public). Their isn't a conspiracy to only attack certain things, whilst wilfully ignoring others. They report things that are relevant. This isn't some unqualified attack on him. He shared it on Twitter. He's an international rugby player mocking another race and slavery.

Using the clearly more heinous crimes of Max Clifford and Jimmy Saville to play down a totally different, more minor incident, is the equivalent of toting out the Nazi's in every argument. Their guilt has no impact on this, they're different things.

I also find it interesting that you say "the media target innocent people just to create a story". So you don't think he's done ANYTHING wrong at all? You think making light of one of the darkest periods and shames in world history is OK? He went out to be offensive, or else why wear the chains, so he deserves some vilification.

The media is an organisation. The 'collection of individuals' statement is very naive. They get pick depending on their viewpoint, how the see the world and that's in an extreme PC way.

I don't see what PJ done wrong. You're right there. I don't get offended when people mock redheads either. I don't get offended when called a Paddy etc so its not really a big deal to me.

Ever see the film 'white chicks'? 2 black men dressing up as white blonds undercover. I enjoyed it but I'm surprised there wasn't outrage over it.

HammerofThunor wrote:I thought the Minstrels had white around their eyes and mouth? So it doesn't look like that.

They did, Hammer. I don't think that was the intention of the face blackening, but it does show how our own already held perceptions help interpret what we see with the eye.

Munchkin wrote:What makes it Black and White minstrel make up, Notch?

The very exaggerated dark facial make-up which is much darker than the body make-up he and the other four guys are wearing is pretty reminiscent of the B&W minstrel show in terms of style. It's blackface make-up.

Just to clarify, you wrote 'Peter' Jackson, i.e. Director of Braindead.

Don't really consider this as media (ritzy or wrongly). I see it as no different than speaking to a guy in the pub. I thought it was pretty clear he talking about the mainstream media, I may have easily been wrong. I often am.

Edit: I was going to correct "ritzy" but decided to leave it.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Fly, was that the original title and they changed it? Because I can't see it now. Or are you talking about a separate story about the director of Braindead?

What are you talking about, Hammer?  The story or the article?  The article isn't the story simply because it's BBC and we're meant to somehow traditionally see 'News' coming from 'official' sources as the only means by which we should judge the Story.

The Article didn't use the word 'Racist' therefore nobody has a right to attach that implication to it?  
Wrong.  The article is only an Article - the story is evolving and we're all part of that as we type.  You make the mistake of thinking we here aren't part of the media. We are.  We are public words typed onto a Public Network - we're pubished opinions that this site can be legally held accountable for.  So yes, you have seen the word Racist - you've seen it written large on this Thread Heading - in public, on a public network - the media.  Profitius can reply accordingly to the implication.

If it wasn't for fear of 'racism' then why would Ulster apologise? I don't think I mislabelled the headline, the incident has caused offence because it CAN be seen as a racist costume. Whether it was intended that was is irrelevant to the perception and subsequent apology.

profitius wrote:I don't see what PJ done wrong.

Really? Is this kind of thing ok in Ireland?

Think it said pic was 2 years ago so Paddy was only about 18 or so at the time, a misjudged mistake
Chris Henry should have known better though.

It is a difficult one, racism is hard to judge, dressing up as a black person isfrowned on, yet the film white chicks is ok

Doing a Scottish accent is funny doing an indian one is frowned on.

All in all people get offened at everything these days, but this clearly is very close to or crosses the line, and should have been avoided.

I notice the OP is someone that rarely chooses to comment on Ulster but suddenly chooses to write a topic about them, a good example of how so many find it acceptable to jump on the sensationalist 'racist' wagon, a bit like the daily bilge media in general.

As for Jackson, he's a total plonker, really stupid but is not a racist and should never be portrayed as such. All involved in this should hang their heads, the body paint is not a problem but coupled with the chains it's all in severely bad taste. To broadcast the supidity on social media is beyond stupid.

Apologies all round and then lets move on.

madmaccas wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Fly, was that the original title and they changed it? Because I can't see it now. Or are you talking about a separate story about the director of Braindead?

What are you talking about, Hammer?  The story or the article?  The article isn't the story simply because it's BBC and we're meant to somehow traditionally see 'News' coming from 'official' sources as the only means by which we should judge the Story.

The Article didn't use the word 'Racist' therefore nobody has a right to attach that implication to it?  
Wrong.  The article is only an Article - the story is evolving and we're all part of that as we type.  You make the mistake of thinking we here aren't part of the media. We are.  We are public words typed onto a Public Network - we're pubished opinions that this site can be legally held accountable for.  So yes, you have seen the word Racist - you've seen it written large on this Thread Heading - in public, on a public network - the media.  Profitius can reply accordingly to the implication.

If it wasn't for fear of 'racism' then why would Ulster apologise? I don't think I mislabelled the headline, the incident has caused offence because it CAN be seen as a racist costume. Whether it was intended that was is irrelevant to the perception and subsequent apology.

Depending on what you mean by 'fear of racism', you answered that in your own post. It's a fear of how the pic might be perceived as racist, even if the motives were entirely innocent. So, at the least, Ulster Rugby were right to issue an apology for any offense caused, and regardless of motive.

Notch wrote:

Munchkin wrote:What makes it Black and White minstrel make up, Notch?

The very exaggerated dark facial make-up which is much darker than the body make-up he and the other four guys are wearing is pretty reminiscent of the B&W minstrel show in terms of style. It's blackface make-up.

We don't know why his make up was darker than that of the others, but it's a leap to claim it as Black and White minstrel make up when, without the addition of white make up, it clearly isn't.

profitius wrote:The media is an organisation. The 'collection of individuals' statement is very naive. They get pick depending on their viewpoint, how the see the world and that's in an extreme PC way.

I don't see what PJ done wrong. You're right there. I don't get offended when people mock redheads either. I don't get offended when called a Paddy etc so its not really a big deal to me.

Ever see the film 'white chicks'? 2 black men dressing up as white blonds undercover. I enjoyed it but I'm surprised there wasn't outrage over it.  

Yep, rich white girls are comparable to centuries of murder, kidnapping, slavery and other unpleasantries. And you enjoyed that film? That's by far the worst thing anyone's said on here

The blacking up was a bit daft (certainly posting up online) but not a massive deal to me. The chains? Why are they there? The Ethiopia Olympic team aren't slaves. So why? Because they're black? As far as I'm concerned (and it really doesn't matter what I think) that's not ok on any level.

Kingshu wrote:Think it said pic was 2 years ago so Paddy was only about 18 or so at the time, a misjudged mistake
Chris Henry should have known better though.

It is a difficult one, racism is hard to judge, dressing up as a black person isfrowned on, yet the film white chicks is ok

Doing a Scottish accent is funny doing an indian one is frowned on.

All in all people get offened at everything these days, but this clearly is very close to or crosses the line, and should have been avoided.

I don't have a problem with dressing up as anything, if the portrayal is respectful and positive.

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:

Munchkin wrote:What makes it Black and White minstrel make up, Notch?

The very exaggerated dark facial make-up which is much darker than the body make-up he and the other four guys are wearing is pretty reminiscent of the B&W minstrel show in terms of style. It's blackface make-up.

We don't know why his make up was darker than that of the others, but it's a leap to claim it as Black and White minstrel make up when, without the addition of white make up, it clearly isn't.

No you're missing the point. That is not what black people actually look like. It's a caricature of what black people look like- not aiming at realism. That is derogatory, in the exact same way the black and white minstrel make up is.

If you're just dressing up as someone and actually trying to look like them, put whatever face paint on you want. Realism is realism. But once you get into the realms of caricature, the ice starts to crack.

The outfits looked Ok at a glance then I saw the chains. That is beyond poor taste. I doubt very much that an English player jesting about the Irish potato famine would go down well and what the moron is doing is along those lines.

The fact he made it his profile picture just further increases the idiocy of the situation. Slavery wasn't and isn't a joke and as he appears to be declaring so publicly that it is was always bound to be taken as offensive. The apology was necessary and more may be forthcoming.

Notch wrote: I don't have a problem with dressing up .

Aye, I had heard that off Rava