Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

365 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. With the possible exception of PNG, I highly doubt that the NRL will expand into the PI's before 2050, if they ever expand into them at all. At the very least I'd put Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Wellington, Christchurch, Melbourne 2, in front of any of the PI's.
  2. Even if they added a Perth club tomorrow, the NRL still wouldn't really be national without at least an Adelaide club as well.
  3. Yep I don't doubt it, but just because it's probably what's going to happen doesn't mean that it's what should happen. Brisbane 2 could/should be the NRL's version Man City to the Broncos Man Utd, but if the Dolphins get the nod it'll just be Brisbane's version of Manly, which is why it'll probably happen, because it's very NRL, and RL in general frankly, to pass up on an opportunity for greatness to take the what they think is the safe and easy road instead.
  4. Uh huh, and where are they now. Also they were talking about playing the odd game in other cities, just like the Warriors do now, not taking half of their season and splitting it between three third world countries. The problem with Bruce and EPIC isn't the distance or the time it takes to get to them so much as it is the locations themselves, i.e. the problem isn't that it's 6km from town (barely anybody lives in town so it's actually much further than 6 km for the vast majority of people), it's that Bruce is in the middle of a suburb with no amenities around it and EPIC is the middle of nowhere with even less. Also as a person that comes from a city where people will regularly complain that it's to far and to hard to attend a game if it's in the next suburb over, and (IIRC) is a Cronulla fan who's memberships and crowds look like they are going to tank because they are temporarily playing in a stadium a couple of suburbs over, you aren't really in a position to talk about lazy fans.
  5. It'd take generations to separate the Dolphins brand from Redcliffe, and the Dolphins are Morton Bay's version of the successful club that everybody loves to hate, so just changing the name from Redcliffe to Morton Bay wouldn't achieve much anyway. Realistically their NRL club would need a total re-brand if it wasn't going to be seen as the Dolphins in drag.
  6. There aren't any NZ bids, so it isn't really an option. Unless you've got someone willing to underwrite the club to the tune of tens of millions of dollars PI teams are a pipe dream, and even if they were feasible no PI team would be as valuable as any of the major capital cities in Australia or NZ. Yeah and I'm sure that you'd embrace it if your local club chose to play half of it games in France and Germany... In trying to appeal to everybody, all you'll achieve is being unappealing to everybody.
  7. Firstly, that's not the argument against a stadium at EPIC at all, nor is that really the complaint against Bruce. Secondly, as a person that probably doesn't really know what EPIC is, let alone the internal politics in Canberra that surround the subject, maybe you should pass on commenting on this subject. Also Suncorp is much closer to Brisbane's CBD than Redcliffe...
  8. Well obviously all of them consider themselves to be Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander at the very least, but I don't know. I don't really consider it any of my business either, nor do I really care outside of the impact that it has on eligibility for international or representative teams. You do know that there're fair skinned Indigenous people and that there's almost no such thing as an Indigenous person (or frankly Australian in general) that isn't ethnically diverse right?
  9. We can both agree that hypocrisy is the act of holding others to a moral standard that you don't keep, that is a fair definition right? Well you have spent the whole discussion saying things like an Indigenous team is a 'celebration' of their culture and that if European people did the exact same thing that it'd be 'inappropriate' or would show 'absolutely zero cultural sensitivity or common sense'. That is rules for thee, but not for me, or holding people to a different moral standard than you hold yourself, i.e. hypocrisy. We can both agree that expressing two contradictory points about a subject to two different people is a fair definition of talking out of both side of your mouth, right? Well you've spent this whole discussion saying that it's ok to have racially/ethnically exclusive European football teams to one person, and then in the next breath saying that it'd be 'inappropriate' or insensitive to another. That is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. So you may be "fed up" with me calling you a hypocrite, or saying you are talking out of both sides of you mouth, but you are being hypocritical and talking out of both sides of your mouth.
  10. Well no, because he isn't eligible under other criteria (but that is a whole other discussion), But if he wants to be he has as much claim to be a NSWelshmen as anybody else. Honestly I don't even want to touch this one. However, I will say that if you have a problem with the standards of the Indigenous All-Star's purity tests then that is nothing to do with me, and you should take it up with them. Personally, I don't think we should have purity tests at all, but that is just me.
  11. I see what you are saying: When did the dingo stop being considered invasive and start being considered native, and if the Dingo can be considered native at all then at what point can e.g. foxes expect the same treatment. It's an interesting philosophical question. I've heard Joe Rogan talk about a similar quandary that Hawaiians are having on his podcast before. Ecologists, environmentalists, and the government in Hawaii want to eradicate feral pigs, but native Hawaiians hold feral pigs as culturally significant (and traditionally one of their main sources of food) so they don't want them eradicated, and they (the native Hawaiians) asked the question of if the pigs aren't considered native at this point then can we (native Hawaiians) truly be considered "native". Also you are right, if there was a British/English equivalent of the Indigenous All-Stars Martin Offiah wouldn't qualify. . .
  12. There is a massive difference between being a Queenslander and being Indigenous, namely being a Queenslander doesn't include immutable characteristics. In other words Jackie Chan could wake up tomorrow, decide he likes Queensland, move there and become a citizen, whack on a Maroon wig, and boom he's a Queenslander. Now I grant that for practicality reasons he still wouldn't be eligible to play for Queensland, but that is a separate discussion. However if Jackie Chan woke up tomorrow and decided he wanted to be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander he couldn't, because just as they say you don't choose your family, you can't choose your ancestry either. It is literally written into the rules of the Indigenous All Stars that you must be part of a certain race and/or ethnicity to play for them, it is literally illegal to do that in this country but a blind eye is turned to it because reasons. In other words not only would it not be socially acceptable for any other group to do it, but if they tried to do it, and it came out publicly that they were doing it, it'd be reported to the Human Rights Commission and they'd be charged with racial and ethnic discrimination! That is the literal definition of double standards and discrimination. I also don't think that it's unfair for people to bring up that if it weren't illegal for there to be Anglo-Saxon or just European equivalents of the Indigenous All Stars, Koori and Murri cups, or for example Aboriginal Health centers (yes they exist, and yes they will literally turn away people that aren't Indigenous), that it'd make international news and everybody would be piling on about how racist it is. That is undeniably a massive double standard. There you go again, out of one side of your mouth you say things like 'we should have an equal society' then out the other you say things like 'but these people should have special privileges because reasons'. Also your cultural sensitivity is highly selective, not only Indigenous people were treated terribly in Australian history mate. I mean just look up Blackbirding, Celtic peoples history (particularly, but not exclusively, Irish and Scottish Highlanders), what happened to the German part of South Australia, or for that matter Japanese Australians during WWII, or anybody that wasn't white that was living in Australia during the White Australia policy, not to mention the convicts and their descendants for generation. I could go on but, hopefully, you get the point. Like all countries history Australia's is full of atrocities (and frankly Britain shares in most of Australia's atrocities), but focusing on only the negative parts of Australia's history isn't helpful, but hyper focusing on one particular part is downright damaging to the culture and social cohesiveness in this country. So if we must constantly focus on the negative aspects of Australia's history, then at least be even handed with it. BTW, when do we start the German ethnic representative footy team? I imagine that'll go down swimmingly lol.
  13. That still isn't an excuse to discriminate against people! You can celebrate culture and bring it to new generations without it being necessary to discriminate against other people. I mean Jesus, this isn't hard.
  14. The Indigenous All Stars are a relatively minor example amongst much more egregious ones, but it definitely perpetuates the divisions in Australian society in a pernicious way. Firstly, you can celebrate culture without discriminating against people. I also don't accept that culture is the key point here. If this was about culture it'd just be people sharing and enjoying culture, not people literally having to prove their ancestry to participate... Secondly, the only difference between a team that represents a specific race/ethnicity at the exclusion of others and one that states that people of a certain race/ethnicity can't participate are the people that are being discriminated against. Both are discriminating based on immutable characteristics, it's just who they are discriminating against and why they are discriminating that is different. Your celebrates the culture stuff is just mental gymnastics to try justify a position you wouldn't normally hold. Finally, you can take exception to being described as a hypocrite all you like, but you are condoning people engaging in behaviour that you would normally criticise others for participating in, and that my friend is a form of hypocrisy.
  15. They've been brought in because teams that are selecting based on race or ethnicity are literally discriminating based on race and ethnicity, there is no other word for it. That is also what you (and any other rational person, including myself) would call it if roles were reversed and it was any other racial or ethnic group not allowing Indigenous players into their teams, in other words I'm pointing out your rank hypocrisy. Firstly, if you don't have black and white lines under the law that apply to everybody, then you don't have equality, and if you don't have equality under the law then you've got the beginnings of a very bad situation. If I or anybody else did what the Indigenous All Stars are doing then we'd be at least heavily fined, if not be facing jail time for repeat offences. Secondly, take historical and cultural sensitivities into account all you like, but if you are going to don't be selective on who's historical and cultural sensitivities you are taking into account, because again, if you do you are discriminating. Personally, I think that by obsessively focusing on the past that you are just reopening old wounds that would heal on their own if you just left them alone. And before you say it, sure the Indigenous population has had a horrendous time throughout Australian history, you know who else has had a terrible time throughout Australian history: pretty much everybody that wasn't part of the upper class or aristocracy that moved to Australia as free settlers from Britain, Europe, and America pre WWI, and anybody that made up the upper class post WWII, i.e. 95%+ of the population in Australia at any one time. There is systematic discrimination and all sorts of atrocities perpetrated against all sorts of people throughout Australia's history, yet you are singling out one group's history and saying that their history and cultural sensitivities need to be singled out for particular attention, when really there're at least half a dozen groups who's histories are similarly horrendous in various ways. I'm in the corner that racial and/or ethnic discrimination, or any discrimination based on immutable characteristics, is wrong full stop! Except in extremely rare circumstances we shouldn't be discriminating at all So if you are going to allow Indigenous people to have racially/ethnically exclusive teams then you've got to let everybody have them, but my preference would be to not have them at all. Firstly, except to say that both are a form of racial/ethnic discrimination I never said that it was analogous to the discriminatory systems that effected the Indigenous population of Australia. However in saying that I think that any Indigenous person would (rightly) say that Indigenous people being excluded from selection for sports teams (particularly representative teams) was symptomatic of the systematic discrimination of Indigenous people in Australia, so maybe it isn't as sensationalist as you think. What I'll also say is that two wrongs don't make a right, and discriminating against other people in a silly attempt to make up for prior discrimination to another group is the definition of the road to hell is paved with good intentions, all you are doing is repeating the exact same mistakes that were made before.
×
×
  • Create New...