mld said:Racist comment deleted
Thats a little dumb! I expect more in your snappy one liners.
I think what rosy said is fair in regards to the dance and what he meant by it.
mld said:Racist comment deleted
rosy23 said:This is Adam's quote. "It's a war cry, it's a battle. It's supposed to intimidate you, it's supposed to say, 'This is who we are. Come at us.' "
To me that is deliberately aimed at inciting the opposition.
rosy23 said:What exactly was Adam's "honesty"? I for one second wouldn't guess how he should have responded. I can only discuss the way he did respond.
Don't feel sad for me :hihi We all risk facing consequences for our actions and have to deal with them as we see fit. Agree? I am sure crowd abuse can affect your mental state. Depends on the person I suppose. It would certainly affect me. Then again I'd never get in their faces with implied acts of violence meant to intimidate.
If it was a celebration of culture why aim it at the opposition in a way of saying "this is war come and get us"? To me a celebration is positive and embracing. Adam certainly wasn't that.
This is Adam's quote. "It's a war cry, it's a battle. It's supposed to intimidate you, it's supposed to say, 'This is who we are. Come at us.' "
To me that is deliberately aimed at inciting the opposition. Do you disagree and if not why? Of all Aboriginal dances why pick that one rather than a more positive and general one? One that included his own team and/or supporters as well? Is Indigenous week meant to segregate?
IanG said:No because he also said "There was nothing untoward to the Carlton supporters. It was actually something for them to stand up and go, 'yep we see you, and we acknowledge you - bring it on.'"
LeeToRainesToRoach said:Goodes said on the night it was "a battle cry at you guys".
"You guys" meaning whitey.
antman said:A battle cry against those who yell racist abuse and boo incessantly.
antman said:A battle cry against those who yell racist abuse and boo incessantly. Goodes has always said since becoming AOTY.
People don't like black fellas standing up directly against racism - it makes it harder for us white folks to pretend it doesn't exist. And that makes us uncomfortable.
So then we have to rationalise it by saying " I don't like that black fella - not because I'm racist, but just because I don't like the way he goes about things."
IanG said:No because he also said "There was nothing untoward to the Carlton supporters. It was actually something for them to stand up and go, 'yep we see you, and we acknowledge you - bring it on.'"
antman said:..........
So then we have to rationalise it by saying " I don't like that black fella - not because I'm racist, but just because I don't like the way he goes about things."
Coburgtiger said:.......
Then there's those who say,
'Oh, he's allowed to oppose racism, but he should do it quietly and politely like Cyril.'
.......
rosy23 said:It seems he was a tad mixed up and he mis-judged the situation if he thought trying to "intimidate" and "come at us" were "nothing untoward". People did come at him and he didn't like it.
Wanting them to stand up and go "yep we see you and we acknowledge you" sounds like a personal cry for attention to me. It wasn't I doubt he wanted Carlton supporters to "come at" Indigenous Australians. I don't judge Adam Goodes or any other footballers on their race. I judge them on their actions. I don't think the football field is the place for political statements of any kind.
You continually quote me to post that quote Ian without adding your own opinion to the discussion.
What do you think Adam meant by "you" in his quote?
What do you think Adam meant by "us" in his quote?
Do you think he's differentiating between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians?
Who did he want people to "come at", remembering this was a so called Indigenous dance not a Swans one?
What did he mean by "bring it on"?
Is that the same as "Come at us"?
Do you believe the majority of people hate Adam's race, as has been claimed, or they are more judging him and his actions personally?
IanG said:........
So you disagree with what Winmar did?
......
IanG said:I've said this multiple times but the context of the intimate comment is related to the nature of the dance not his motivation.
1. His opponents- Why not aim it at his opponents then, ie the opposition team? Being Carlton supporters doesn't necessarily make them "his opponents"
2. Aboriginals and his teammates So "come at us" meant come at Aboriginals? He is an individual who happens to be Aboriginal. He doesn't speak for all Aboriginals. If he wants people to come at him fair enough (though I suspect he didn't like them taking him up on his offer) but he shouldn't include all Aboriginals in that. Some just might not want it.
3. In terms of racial equality and racism sure, in terms of football and his teammates no. Yet he said he wouldn't do it to the opposition because of an Indigenous player in their team. To me that is in terms of football. It was a war dance that was meant to intimidate. Who better to aim it at than the opposition team regardless of their colour or creed.
4. Opponents on the field, as I said above he's talking about the nature of the dance Should have aimed it at them then.
5. The game I don't see how opposition supporters, who the dance was aimed at could bring the game on. The game was already going on.
IanG said:7. No and I've said as much but that doesn't mean the booing wasn't co-opted by racists and thus becomes persecution.
rosy23 said:This is the question I was most interested in. You quoted me with some irrelevant reply when I referred to Cobugtiger discussing people being opposed to Adam's race. If you weren't just singling me out I can't see why you didn't question Coburg's actual claim instead considering you now say you don't agree with it.
IanG said:I don't know which post you're talking about can you link it please.
Coburgtiger said:........
You were still joining in with a mob bullying of an individual, when a significant component of that mob were opposed to Adams race***
.......
rosy23 said:I've seen or read no concrete evidence of that whatsoever. Saying it's so doesn't make it so. The fact other indigenous players aren't targeted the same way indicates to me it probably isn't the case.
IanG said:As has been said multiple times they aren't outspoken like him, and whats the difference between Goodes and other somewhat dirty players, the fact that he's outspoken on racial issues and makes people feel uncomfortable.
rosy23 said:This discussion
Your post doesn't really refer to what Coburgtiger said and what my post you quoted was specifically responding to. I was replying to a claim that people opposed the Aboriginal race. Nothing to do with "other somewhat dirty players".
Maybe I just missed your point. It seems to me you just responded to my comment without any regard to the context or what I was referring to. Not the first time that's happened on this thread. Feel free to clarify.
(*** As Coburg has pointed out his full sentence was "You were still joining in with a mob bullying of an individual, when a significant component of that mob were opposed to Adams race, or his comments on race relations, or his celebration of his culture." I only mentioned opposed to his race rather than all of is because that is the part I had an issue with.)
rosy23 said:This discussion
Your post doesn't really refer to what Coburgtiger said and what my post you quoted was specifically responding to. I was replying to a claim that people opposed the Aboriginal race. Nothing to do with "other somewhat dirty players".
Maybe I just missed your point. It seems to me you just responded to my comment without any regard to the context or what I was referring to. Not the first time that's happened on this thread. Feel free to clarify.
(*** As Coburg has pointed out his full sentence was "You were still joining in with a mob bullying of an individual, when a significant component of that mob were opposed to Adams race, or his comments on race relations, or his celebration of his culture." I only mentioned opposed to his race rather than all of is because that is the part I had an issue with.)
IanG said:Significant does not necessarily mean majority. I agree with Coburgtiger and don't think there's a contradiction.
Coburgtiger said:Rosy, I know you tried to be diplomatic there, but it really is important to take that sentence as a whole, it loses its meaning as a fragment.
A significant component of that mob who were booing had some racial motivation. That doesn't mean all, or even most. Just a significant number. And of those who are booing with racial motivation, most had an issue with his cultural celebration, some had an issue with comments on race relations, and a small minority are simply racists who simply don't like aboriginal people.
In no way am I saying most of the people who booed were opposed to Adams race. I'm saying a worrying number of them booed with some sort of racial motivation. And of that group, racists formed some part.
rosy23 said:Significant does not necessarily mean majority I agree but I think that's splitting hairs a bit. How can you know any of those booing were opposed to the Aboriginal race?