|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Like most outside observers, Cassidy wouldn't have known exactly what was going on behind closed doors – indeed, few people did until 2017, a few whispered rumours aside – so I'm not sure what your point is, PP.
I also think that painting McNamara's posts as "revenge" is a bit jaundiced. We need to let go of this Collingwood supporter victim mentality and stop being so protective of the club; yes, it sounds like a positive step forward that the club has just instituted an expert group to implement the report's recommendations, but it doesn't mean that Lumumba and his friends are obliged to shut up and go home now. McNamara's post is confronting individuals who could have stood up for Lumumba but chose to stay silent, even when they may have been themselves complicit in the club's casually racist culture (particularly Maxwell, who is, in no small irony, now the club's leadership and culture manager). Maybe the truth hurts, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to put it out there. |
Thanks for your reply David.
My point was that Cassidy has been a bit of a hypocrite given that his most recent piece was such an hysterically critical rant about the club. However, you're right in that he may not have been fully aware back in 2013 about what exactly was going on.
I am not suggesting at all that Heritier and friends should shut up and go home! Where did I espouse that? I do think it would be in the best interests of their cause to adopt a more conciliatory approach while the opportunity is there. I believe that trying to further incriminate individuals seems to me to be counter -productive at this point, is unnecessary and thus, indicative of being tinged with the need for revenge as well as change ( a sort of kick them while they're down approach).
Anyway, having examined all this with as much time and energy as I could, I've come to these conclusions:
* regretably, the club has been a work place in which systemic racism was present
* it has and is now taking steps to address that
* systemic racism within an institution does not automatically mean that the individuals within it are racists
* Heritier has courageously agitated for change regarding racism and discrimination
* Heritier is due a public apology from the club for the pain and suffering he endured as a result of systemic racism, as do any others who may have been discriminated against. (However, the club may be receiving legal advice to postpone that given that a court case is still pending).
* not all of the pain and hurt that Heritier has suffered/is enduring is the consequence of systemic or direct racism. His individual personality and psychology, along with his personal experiences, also play a part in his views and perceptions. |
|
|
|
|
Mr Miyagi
Joined: 14 Sep 2018
|
Post subject: | |
|
Thanks David! I’ll pass this on to a mate who said H made it up because he wasn’t bald at the time. He definitely did have a shave head in his first and second years.
Pendlebury’s dreadlocks however never happened. |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mr Miyagi wrote: |
Pendlebury’s dreadlocks however never happened. |
Oh yes they did Mr Miyagi and I loved them!!
Just google "Scott Pendlebury with dreadlocks" |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: Re: Best media comment on the "do better" report. | |
|
Very good, balanced article. Thanks. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mr Miyagi wrote: | Thanks David! I’ll pass this on to a mate who said H made it up because he wasn’t bald at the time. He definitely did have a shave head in his first and second years. |
Geewhiz, people are so desperate not to believe him they'll question anything. Heritier, can you prove you ever actually played for Collingwood? How can we know that you're the same person as that guy? Are you sure this is Earth we are on and not some other planet? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
FletchLives
Joined: 15 Aug 2019
|
Post subject: | |
|
Nice to have some points clarified in this article from those who were commissioned to undertake the "do better" report.
"It is critical to understand that we were not asked to investigate whether racist incidents had occurred"
"Our terms of reference accepted that racism had occurred and had not been adequately dealt with. This was everyone’s starting point."
They didn't "find" racism - they assumed it occurred and contend that no reasonable person who viewed past incidents could not see a fundamental problem.
It's interesting that the evidence for "systemic racism" is commonly differences in relative outcomes for specific groups in reference to some other group(s). ie disparity in literacy, employment, health, income, etc. This may be seen as proof of racism in society but it does not necessarily require racist policies/laws or overt racists.
What is the evidence for systemic racism specific to Collingwood? I would expect some figure or metric but as best as I can tell there is none given. There is commentary on the (poor) handling of complaints of racism from within the club. It remains unclear to me why this is being used as "proof" that the club is systemically racist. It seems to be implied that it is being poorly handled because the club leaders, if not condoning racism then at least have no objection to it. But even if that were true there appears to be an absence of some comparator.
In this situation I would expect some investigation on how other non-racism based complaints raised from within the club are being handled. ie: club membership, performance of team, trading/recruitment, list management, number of injuries, coaching,...etc What is the difference(s) in how these issues are dealt with in comparison to racism-based complaints, if any?
Or else a comparison of Collingwood against other clubs following the same terms of reference.
I could go on...
Worldwide professional sporting teams essentially survive/thrive or die largely on the back of their on-field performance. Racism is not a winning strategy and there is no incentives in place for it.
I hope Collingwood does better and I hope we don't direct too many resources in a direction that doesn't help this aim.
To make it clear I would like us to win more premierships and I want supporters, players and staff from whatever backgrounds to work together in whatever way helps us achieve this. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Gee whiz....people aren’t desperate to not believe him but his actions and words now are not “congruent” with his speech at his final Copeland. Therein lies the shadow of doubt.
I assume that you haven’t heard the speech? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
PyreneesPie wrote: | Mr Miyagi wrote: |
Pendlebury’s dreadlocks however never happened. |
Oh yes they did Mr Miyagi and I loved them!!
Just google "Scott Pendlebury with dreadlocks" |
They sure did, that and his god awful South American porn star moustache _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
slangman wrote: | Gee whiz....people aren’t desperate to not believe him but his actions and words now are not “congruent” with his speech at his final Copeland. Therein lies the shadow of doubt.
I assume that you haven’t heard the speech? |
I’m not a professional psychologist or anything, but let me tell you something I’ve noticed about human behaviour: what people say and do in certain situations is shaped by context and intentions. Some people will break up with a partner whom they have felt disappointed and frustrated with, but still choose to frame a break-up speech in the kindest and most positive manner possible (i.e. focusing on the good times and the other person’s good qualities), perhaps so they can part on good terms, perhaps so they can preserve their own dignity, perhaps because they’re thinking of the other person’s feelings. This doesn’t necessarily mean of course that they’re being dishonest, and neither does it mean that the bad things they felt about the relationship, or bad things that happened during it, weren’t real or have been erased. It just means that that’s not what they want to deal with in that moment.
I think it’s fair to say that that was the mindset Heritier went into that night with. He wasn’t going to stand up and denounce the club; he wanted to put a full stop on a part of his life that had had plenty of good as well as bad times and feel like he could leave with dignity. That’s not rocket science, is it?
To some extent we choose how we address matters, and yes, it would have been entirely possible for someone in Lumumba’s position to tell themselves and others that what went on was fine. Many go to their graves doing so. But if the truth was that they didn’t feel fine, and that when they look back at things they realise that something wasn’t right and that it shouldn’t have been tolerated, then sometimes the better option is to speak out, even years after the fact. And that’s fine. We need to start acknowledging that it is fine, and stop treating such people as hypocrites and troublemakers, and stop trying to tear them down for speaking out. I’m not sure how many, say, royal commissions into institutional abuse (as just one particularly horrendous example) we need to drive that point home. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
I agree with Jake Niall in the sense that defeating racism at Collingwood is not the issue: rather, defeating racism at large is the issue. While the Australian government and its media accomplices spew out anti-China venom, anti-Muslim hysteria, and publications such as the Hun vomit out their anti-Somali xenophobia, the issue of racism will never be fully exorcised from any sporting club, or any institution.
But I am hopeful that the disgust for racism, and the idealistic energy of the young men in our team, as Darcy Moore articulated so well, will be a force to galvanise our team in 2021. I hope it will give them a crusading energy going forward.
I am a Collingwood impassionado, as is everyone on this site. In the final analysis, in every social phenonomen that affects Collingwood, I focus entirely on what potentially can lift our performance on the field. _________________ Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | slangman wrote: | Gee whiz....people aren’t desperate to not believe him but his actions and words now are not “congruent” with his speech at his final Copeland. Therein lies the shadow of doubt.
I assume that you haven’t heard the speech? |
I’m not a professional psychologist or anything, but let me tell you something I’ve noticed about human behaviour: what people say and do in certain situations is shaped by context and intentions. Some people will break up with a partner whom they have felt disappointed and frustrated with, but still choose to frame a break-up speech in the kindest and most positive manner possible (i.e. focusing on the good times and the other person’s good qualities), perhaps so they can part on good terms, perhaps so they can preserve their own dignity, perhaps because they’re thinking of the other person’s feelings. This doesn’t necessarily mean of course that they’re being dishonest, and neither does it mean that the bad things they felt about the relationship, or bad things that happened during it, weren’t real or have been erased. It just means that that’s not what they want to deal with in that moment.
I think it’s fair to say that that was the mindset Heritier went into that night with. He wasn’t going to stand up and denounce the club; he wanted to put a full stop on a part of his life that had had plenty of good as well as bad times and feel like he could leave with dignity. That’s not rocket science, is it?
To some extent we choose how we address matters, and yes, it would have been entirely possible for someone in Lumumba’s position to tell themselves and others that what went on was fine. Many go to their graves doing so. But if the truth was that they didn’t feel fine, and that when they look back at things they realise that something wasn’t right and that it shouldn’t have been tolerated, then sometimes the better option is to speak out, even years after the fact. And that’s fine. We need to start acknowledging that it is fine, and stop treating such people as hypocrites and troublemakers, and stop trying to tear them down for speaking out. I’m not sure how many, say, royal commissions into institutional abuse (as just one particularly horrendous example) we need to drive that point home. |
I agree totally David. What Lumumba said that night should in no way signify the truth of what he actually felt, and what crystallised from his feelings afterwards. To suggest otherwise is totally mechanical and unrealistic. _________________ Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
What you say might be true but it also might not be true and therein lies the problem.
Taking it a step further, that same argument could be made for so many of the allegations that Lumumba (“should no way signify the truth”) has since made about the club and individuals within the club. Maybe he misinterpreted what they meant or their actions weren’t necessarily what he thought they were.
Untangling a speech to justify ones narrative is a slippery slope which if the accused (Collingwood, Eddie, Bucks etc) used the same tactic, this whole situation would be null and void.
Taking offence to something retrospectively (especially when you have contributed to it) is nothing short of laughable.
....and finally, using your own reasoning, would you excuse Eddie for his gaffes? _________________ - Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
You are making false amalgams. Eddie was in a position of power, H was not. What H said on copeland trophy night is in no way is equivalent to what Eddie said on prime time media, not once but multiple times. Your arguments are totally flawed, because you do not have apparently any sense of social context, and might also be lacking a little empathy.
So no, I would not excuse Eddy. His numerous reprehensible statements cannot be excused. In contrast, what H said on Copeland trophy night has no significance in assessing the validity of his current complaints. _________________ Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Both had a microphone and an audience but your parameters for contextual interpretation are seemingly flawed by your insistence that everything that H has said is absolute gospel.
The old adage that the truth lies somewhere in the middle is applicable to this situation as much as any other. _________________ - Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
VicParkTragic
Joined: 17 Oct 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|