All Stars...

[Bert1 127]

Could Offiah etc play in an indigenous British team? Imagine saying that to him! Stupid idea and not singing the Anthem just creates bigger issues. 
 

Happy to take the ££ for years and now they have issues. 

[Dunbar 7,225]

3 minutes ago, Bert1 said:

Could Offiah etc play in an indigenous British team? Imagine saying that to him

You do know what Indigenous means don't you?

[gingerjon 10,564]

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You do know what Indigenous means don't you?

"Was it a hot day in Barnsley when you born?"

That sort of thing.

[DavidM 8,161]

Just now, gingerjon said:

"Was it a hot day in Barnsley when you born?"

That sort of thing.

Sounds like that’s right  out of the Prince Phillip book of quotes!

[gingerjon 10,564]

Just now, DavidM said:

Sounds like that’s right  out of the Prince Phillip book of quotes!

My grandparents, including the war hero (who basically lied but, fair play, he was at least somewhere near France on D-day and it still plugging away) had a somewhat unreconstructed attitude to race which included finding anyone who was 'non white' but who had a British regional accent to be the funniest things they could imagine.

That line is a direct lift from them.

 

[Moove 774]

Haha what the actual chuff is this thread? Isn't Offiah getting a bit old to be picked for a team anyway?

[Bert1 127]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

You do know what Indigenous means don't you?

Yes. And if you take it to it’s truest meaning none of the Aus lads are.

[The Great Dane 433]

15 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Dont be ridiculous, having an indigenous team is no more discriminatory than having a queensland team

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.

15 hours ago, Click said:

The victimhood never ceases to amaze me at times. No one is being discriminated against.

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.

8 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The argument for discrimination is "if people of indigenous decent can have a representative team to celebrate their culture, why can't those of Western European decent have their own representative team"

Of course this argument only stands up for those people with absolutely zero cultural sensitivity or common sense.

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.

[The Great Dane 433]

8 hours ago, Bert1 said:

Yes. And if you take it to it’s truest meaning none of the Aus lads are.

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. . . 

Edited February 11 by The Great Dane

[aj1908 953]

Omg this thread went full weird 

 

[scotchy1 5,120]

5 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

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.

Cool, so Sam Burgess could have played in Origin. Interesting.

[Dunbar 7,225]

5 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

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.

I am getting a little fed up with the way you are approaching this discussion.

Firstly, you call me out for my 'rank hypocrisy' and now you are saying that I speak from 'one side of my mouth' and 'then out of the other' (with a made up quote that you attribute to me as something I would be likely to say).

I am happy to discuss the merits of the Indigenous game and the wider consequences of creating these types of events and I also believe (as I have stated before on this thread) that you have some very sound points that I agree on.

But we disagree on other parts and I would ask that you concentrate on the discussion in hand and refrain from the comments on my character. 

[Click 489]

6 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

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.

Completely, when I see the likes of George Rose, Cory Paterson, Jamie Soward, Greg Bird, Aiden Sezer, Jack Wighton, Tyrone Roberts and the like - The first thing I think of is how they different they look to other races in Australia.

[The Great Dane 433]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Cool, so Sam Burgess could have played in Origin. Interesting.

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.

1 hour ago, Click said:

Completely, when I see the likes of George Rose, Cory Paterson, Jamie Soward, Greg Bird, Aiden Sezer, Jack Wighton, Tyrone Roberts and the like - The first thing I think of is how they different they look to other races in Australia.

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.  

[Click 489]

12 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

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.  

You are saying it excludes people of certain races and ethnicities - what races/ethnicities are some of the players I named?

[The Great Dane 433]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I am getting a little fed up with the way you are approaching this discussion.

Firstly, you call me out for my 'rank hypocrisy' and now you are saying that I speak from 'one side of my mouth' and 'then out of the other' (with a made up quote that you attribute to me as something I would be likely to say).

I am happy to discuss the merits of the Indigenous game and the wider consequences of creating these types of events and I also believe (as I have stated before on this thread) that you have some very sound points that I agree on.

But we disagree on other parts and I would ask that you concentrate on the discussion in hand and refrain from the comments on my character. 

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.

[The Great Dane 433]

7 minutes ago, Click said:

You are saying it excludes people of certain races and ethnicities - what races/ethnicities are some of the players I named?

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?

[RL does what Sky says 1,450]

18 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The argument for discrimination is "if people of indigenous decent can have a representative team to celebrate their culture, why can't those of Western European decent have their own representative team"

Of course this argument only stands up for those people with absolutely zero cultural sensitivity or common sense.

Again I have an opposite opinion. If I want a team to represent "my culture" - for which I have absolutely 100% cultural sensitivity (ie A team made up purely of those born in the north of England and whose families were also born there for centuries) then why should that be treated any different to any other team made up of those who represent an alternative culture (ie A team made up purely of those born in Australia and whose families were also born there for centuries) ?

Note only one difference in the two examples. One says "north of England" and one says "Australia". Two cultures which, in my view, should be treated the same.

By the way, again I say, that is my opinion - which to me is a common sense one.  Yours in your opinion - which to you is a common sense one. I do accept that you have given your opinion as you see the situation and therefore with common sense based on that. However, I too have given my opinion under the same criteria .... so please don''t claim that I don't have common sense when that too is subjective.

[Dunbar 7,225]

26 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

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.

Of course this is not hypocritical.  The key word in all of my contributions on this matter is the word 'appropriate'.  Of course I am allowed to say that I believe that one of these events is appropriate and the other not without it being hypocritical as I am making a judgement on the merits and value of each one.  You may not agree with my judgement but simply labeling the fact that I find one appropriate and the other not as hypocritical is lazy.

If you can find evidence on this site where I have shown a different judgement based on a similar set of circumstances then I will accept that this is hypocritical but as I try to maintain a consistent set of values in these matters then I do not believe that you will find such evidence.

27 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

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.

Please provide evidence of where I have done this.

[Sports Prophet 998]

On 10/02/2020 at 09:56, aj1908 said:

If you are interested Google racism in the afl.  Adam goodes was booed for years and I mean for the whole game.  He was basically forced out of the afl

 

I don’t believe the booing of Goodes was racially motivated. While I believe the booing did reach an unacceptable level and was a form of bullying, I don’t accept that he was being booed because of his race or culture.

Shame, his on field endeavours really will see him historically as one of Australia’s greatest sportspersons.

[Sports Prophet 998]

On 10/02/2020 at 17:27, The Great Dane said:

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.

Indigenous and Maori teams are as about discriminatory as teams selected based on an individual’s gender or nationality, give it a rest, no need to play the devil’s advocate all the time.

[scotchy1 5,120]

2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

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   

So having an indigenous team is no more discriminatory than origin. 

Good that we agree.

[Dunbar 7,225]

On 07/02/2020 at 18:35, Futtocks said:

As for the Nines, I've booked the Friday off work and am looking forward to it.

I've just made a last minute decision and booked tomorrow off for the nines as well.

The only thing I have to do now is hide from my daughter all day who is home from school and pretend I have gone to work.

Does that make me a bad dad!

[Sports Prophet 998]

I’ll be there. Looking forward to it, albeit, I will probably watch very little and spend most the time with a beer havin a laugh

[Dave T 14,871]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I've just made a last minute decision and booked tomorrow off for the nines as well.

The only thing I have to do now is hide from my daughter all day who is home from school and pretend I have gone to work.

Does that make me a bad dad!

Yep. 

Enjoy!