Are There Too Many Risks Associated with Drafting Indigenous Footballers?

[mld]

Agreed but the proponents of the alternative argument just dont see it. Apparently indigenous players are not individuals but come with a pre determined set of characterics. Also apparently that's not a racist position !

Indeed, it stems from a flawed opening position. The original question begged a politcally correct reaction in return, which then begs the standard anti-poltically correct response. It would be brilliant if everyone could take a step back, agree with us and accept that individuals should be judged on their individual merits and risks.

 

[Willo]

Indeed, it stems from a flawed opening position. The original question begged a politcally correct reaction in return, which then begs the standard anti-poltically correct response. It would be brilliant if everyone could take a step back, agree with us and accept that individuals should be judged on their individual merits and risks.

Good summation

 

[Disco08]

If I said that blacks are better basketballers than whites no-one would argue, but if I said they can't swim for sh%t I would be abused and pilloried as a racist.

I don't think you would. Being called poor swimmers isn't quite as offensive as being labeled lazy, good-for-nothing drunks.

The players race is a consideration. Because you consider his race a positive you feel it is not racist. Because some feel his race MAY be a negative you feel it is racist.

Making a negative assumption about any person because of their race is racist.

 

[Brodders17]

Agin,
maybe just so everyone knows you should start all your posts with "i'm not racist but ........".

anyway perhaps a better title to the thread could be "should other issues other than footballing ability, individual circumstances and list management be taken into consideration when recruiting"?

disregarding all the other crap written through this thread if someone doesnt consider it racist to suggest someone shouldnt be recruited because of their race they prob arent worth discussing the issue with.

 

[lamb22]

Ummmm, you're the one not seeing it.

If believing that an indigenous player is more likely to have skills/talents that will make him a better player than an anglo player is not a racially motivated decision then what is?

The players race is a consideration. Because you consider his race a positive you feel it is not racist. ]Because some feel his race MAY be a negative you feel it is racist.

You believe that " indigenous players are not individuals but come with a pre determined set of characterics" as well, namely a predisposition to become better players.

So the only difference is you feel you have the moral high ground.

Wrong! I actually stated in post 50 that assumptions that indigenous players have special talents is not universally true.

IMO you recruit a player because he has shown he can play, or you can take the Miller approach and pick JON.

You are so used to making assumptions about what people are and what people think you completely make up assumptions about me.

I said recruiters have decided indigenous players are more worthy of recruiting as evidenced by their over representation as recruits.

I've also said indigenous players have proved themsleves valauble in grand finals as evidenced by their high proportion of Norm Smith medals.

I made evidence based observations not offered pre conceived opinions. I would recruit also on evidence based observations and not pre conceived opinions.

 

[TigerForce]

When "White Men Can't Jump" was released was there uproar and disgust at this blatant racism? No. Because white people laughed and basically said "you're not wrong there". We weren't offended.
But when KFC release an ad showing West Indians enjoying KFC (which they do) it was decried as being racist.
Both are generalisations based on truth. Why is one OK but not the other?

If I said that blacks are better basketballers than whites no-one would argue, but if I said they can't swim for sh%t I would be abused and pilloried as a racist.

Both statements are true though....

I believe that any true observation of a race is therefore by definition racist.

I will try not to make broad sweeping generalisations of various races without those statements being true if others will refrain from calling me a racist when those truths are not to their liking!

It's all due to political correctness which I can't stand, but it all depends on how someone expresses the question or statement to know if it was meant to be racist or not.

That KFC ad and the Hey Hey skit was only called racist by Americans who live and bath in political correctness and hypocrisy nowadays. A lady from the West Indian consulate(?) spoke on the news about the KFC ad and said there was nothing racist about it, then again, the Indian government has labelled us racists because of an Indian man being killed after having others attacked / killed in recent years also.

It's all due to opinion and perception.

 

[Brodders17]

It's all due to political correctness which I can't stand, but it all depends on how someone expresses the question or statement to know if it was meant to be racist or not.

That KFC ad and the Hey Hey skit was only called racist by Americans who live and bath in political correctness and hypocrisy nowadays. A lady from the West Indian consulate(?) spoke on the news about the KFC ad and said there was nothing racist about it, then again, the Indian government has labelled us racists because of an Indian man being killed after having others attacked / killed in recent years also.

It's all due to opinion and perception.

perhaps the KFC skit was seen as racist in America because blacks over there are sick of being stereotyped as dumb, unhealthy deep fried chicken eaters.
perhaps the Hey Hey skit was seen as racist in America because black over there have battled hard to get past the stage where they were appreciated for their singing talents but little else.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

It's pretty clear a lot of people are offended by the question "Are indiginous Footballers worth recruiting".

The use of the word "worth" is what makes it offensive.

It suggests there is an argument that Aborigines in general are not worth recruiting.

That is why it IS offensive and racist.

 

[tigertragic]

i think the thegdog may want to retreive his head from his ass,that's the dumbest thing i have heard in my life....

 

[mld]

perhaps the KFC skit was seen as racist in America because blacks over there are sick of being stereotyped as dumb, unhealthy deep fried chicken eaters.
perhaps the Hey Hey skit was seen as racist in America because black over there have battled hard to get past the stage where they were appreciated for their singing talents but little else.

Case in point - the flawed original post has resulted in a generic internet argument about topics completely unrelated to the recruitment of football players.

 

[TigerForce]

perhaps the KFC skit was seen as racist in America because blacks over there are sick of being stereotyped as dumb, unhealthy deep fried chicken eaters.
perhaps the Hey Hey skit was seen as racist in America because black over there have battled hard to get past the stage where they were appreciated for their singing talents but little else.

That's what I mean by 'expression'. Neither ad/skit were meant to express that, but they (Americans) took it the wrong way.

Why did the West Indian lady say it's not racist, and yet the Indian government mention that an Indian been killed here makes us racist?

 

[TigerForce]

One comment mostly from football commentators that I somehow find racist against indigenous players is when they get the ball during a game and you hear: "can he produce some magic?"

What magic? Voodoo?

I've heard this line for years but no-one has questioned it.

 

[mld]

One comment mostly from football commentators that I somehow find racist against indigenous players is when they get the ball during a game and you hear: "can he produce some magic?"

What magic? Voodoo?

I've heard this line for years but no-one has questioned it.

I'd suggest you taken that one up with the commentators.

 

[Total Tiger]

Having been one of those vehemently opposed to this thread as it was written, the title is a little better now. However, I'm still not totally comfortable with the connotation that indigenous players are "inherently risky" to recruit. I again go back to David Wirrpunda and Michael Long and ask what the inherent risks were there.

Is the risk more in moving kids (black, white, green, blue) interstate at such a young age and taking them out of their family environments? Rather than gradually gain independence in the adult world, they are thrust out there whether they are mature enough to handle it or not. Add the income and fame to that equation, and it is definitely risky.

 

[Streak]

Unbloody believeable!!!!!!

Sorry if this was mentioned before, but seriously........

Earlier in this thread we had people suggesting that this thread had racist overtones, and the title of the thread should be changed.

Well I am sorry, but I see the new title "Are There Inherent Risks Associated with Drafting Indigenous Footballers" as being far worse than the original.

So now we are talking inherent, as in predisposed, built-in or just plain genetic issues based on race which means these kids are more trouble than they are worth.

Way to go! The PRE version of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

 

[mld]

Having been one of those vehemently opposed to this thread as it was written, the title is a little better now. However, I'm still not totally comfortable with the connotation that indigenous players are "inherently risky" to recruit. I again go back to David Wirrpunda and Michael Long and ask what the inherent risks were there.

Is the risk more in moving kids (black, white, green, blue) interstate at such a young age and taking them out of their family environments? Rather than gradually gain independence in the adult world, they are thrust out there whether they are mature enough to handle it or not. Add the income and fame to that equation, and it is definitely risky.

Fiddling with the original question to make it politically correct doesn't address the underlying flaw in the original question. Papering over the original ignorance won't remove that ignorance from the community. As you point out, there is risk in other blanket assumptions, so it is obvious that we need to do away with blanket assumptions and judge individuals individually.

 

[Disco08]

So now we are talking inherent, as in predisposed, built-in or just plain genetic issues based on race which means these kids are more trouble than they are worth.

Way to go! The PRE version of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

That was the gist of gdog's question though right? Perhaps if we just stuck to answering it we could come to the conclusion that very few of us are stupid enough to believe that the entire indigenous population is predisposed to antisocial behaviour and move on.

 

[Total Tiger]

Fiddling with the original question to make it politically correct doesn't address the underlying flaw in the original question. Papering over the original ignorance won't remove that ignorance from the community. As you point out, there is risk in other blanket assumptions, so it is obvious that we need to do away with blanket assumptions and judge individuals individually.

I actually agree with you. I found questioning their worth abhorrent, but don't really sit comfortable with their recruitment being inherently risky either.

I still think the thread should be deleted.

 

[TigerForce]

That was the gist of gdog's question though right? Perhaps if we just stuck to answering it we could come to the conclusion that very few of us are stupid enough to believe that the entire indigenous population is predisposed to antisocial behaviour and move on.

Exactly right, but the gist of a question & political correctness never seem to match.

Problem here is that most answers would come up as racist depending on how they are expressed.

 

[Disco08]

I actually agree with you. I found questioning their worth abhorrent, but don't really sit comfortable with their recruitment being inherently risky either.

I still think the thread should be deleted.

Why? Talking about it is far more likely to bring about change than shoving it in the cupboard.