Mega Thread The Adam Goodes Megathread - Now with Added Poll!

Why are crowds booing Goodes?

  • Racism

    Votes: 565 29.9%
  • He's perceived as a dirty player

    Votes: 563 29.8%
  • He's perceived as making a team game all about himself

    Votes: 758 40.1%
  • Because everyone else is booing, I thought I'd join in - like a Mexican wave thing

    Votes: 268 14.2%
  • Because Gillon doesnt want them to

    Votes: 135 7.2%
  • I have no idea

    Votes: 74 3.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 183 9.7%
  • His onfield message is at odds with his off field one

    Votes: 233 12.3%
  • He can do no wrong with the MRP

    Votes: 164 8.7%
  • I was saying Boo-Urns?

    Votes: 61 3.2%
  • Jack Watts

    Votes: 56 3.0%

  • Total voters
    1,888

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you feel the same way when Mickey O stuck it up the West Coast supporters a number of years back?

Or was is Tredrea or some other Port player who gave fans the bird after a goal? Apologies if it wasn't Port.

Or when Lockett booted the ball into the spectator?

I can't believe there is so much outrage over Goodes's little dance. FFS you little shits, find something in the world that truly represents the level of your outrage.

9rke8l.jpg


That was against North. He copped a fair spray over it - not at the time, we were getting smashed so there wasn't much we could say, but certainly on the forum afterwards.

...and that was pretty much it. North fans still think he's a bit of a flog for it, but he certainly didn't spend the rest of his career getting mercilessly booed every time he played an away game like Goodes is.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

so tell me again what has Adam Goodes done to help reconciliation?

What have you done to help it?

This tired old trick. Verify the unverifiable (we are on an online forum). Who's scoring more points! We don't have to be doing as much as Adam to criticise his behaviour. Absurd logic.

It comes down to the person and the way they chose to deal with society around them, not just the accomplishments. No different with Goodes. And many white and indigenous people I know feel the same ill feelings about him since his playing issues in the 2000's, and then his activism efforts since. While most agree bringing this country together is the way forward.

Long, McLeod, Winmar, Wirrpunda. Just some examples of footballers who have all done more body of works than Adam by far, done it better, and are better people in my view to be held up and lead us further down the path of solutions for the first Australians. They are a diverse people and those "social justice" activists like Goodes want to boil it down to a sound bite like everyone is in lockstep.

So many better examples dead and alive we have already to look to from the indigenous peoples. Ones who have spent their life doing it too. Not just their spare time.

"Mandawuy Djarrtjuntjun Yunupingu On 26 January 1993 Yunupingu was named Australian of the Year for 1992 by the National Australia Day Council.[21][36] In April 1998 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Queensland University of Technology, "in recognition of his significant contribution to the education of Aboriginal children, and to greater understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians".[2] Yothu Yindi were inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in December 2012"​

I remember as a kid thinking how amazing it was. It was then, as a primary school kid I realised that there was a difference in peoples minds as to colour. Here I was just befriending whoever nationality and race I felt drawn to for the person they were.

But I could tell from the adults in my life and the words on TV this man was a significant seismic shift in recognition of indigenous people in our national culture. One of the first "celebrated" figures.

"Sir Douglas Ralph "Doug" Nicholls, KCVO, OBE (9 December 1906 – 4 June 1988)[1] was a prominent Aboriginal Australian from the Yorta Yorta people. He was a professional athlete, Churches of Christ pastor and church planter, ceremonial officer and a pioneering campaigner for reconciliation.
Nicholls was the first Aboriginal person to be knighted and also the first appointed to vice-regal office, serving as Governor of South Australia from 1 December 1976 until his resignation on 30 April 1977 due to poor health."​

Read up on him. Was the first aboriginal Governor of a state, first to be knighted. He was good enough to be an VFL player but could not play due to racist attitudes. I feel for him immensely, but what a life he carved after that adversity of rejection from playing at the elite level.

He started reconciliation, was a pioneer of it. Definitely one to be held up. Look at this quote from him -- "You can play a tune on black keys, you can play a tune on white keys, but both are needed for perfect harmony." -- Sir Douglas Nicholls

Isn't that just the antithesis of Adam Goodes style of "reconciliation"

"Marion Scrymgour was the first Indigenous woman to become a minister and has to date been the highest ranked Indigenous woman in a government, when she became Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory from 2007 until 2009"
Politicians, lawyers, people on the ground, these are how changes get done. Like the 1967 referendum which then saw aboriginal politicians accepted into office. Small steps. A lot of them every year. No one grandstanding credit, just workerbee like changes, happening for decades now.

"Jeffrey Lee is the last surviving member of the Djok clan, and therefore the sole traditional owner of land known as Koongarra, in the Northern Territory. The area is rich in uranium and despite the potential to earn millions from a sale, Lee consistently said “no” to mining on his land. Last year the Australian of the Year award recognised his work protecting land that is “home to sacred burial sites and other special places that Jeffrey feels a sense of responsibility to look after”. In 2013 the land was incorporated into the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park, for which Jeffrey works as a ranger, and is thus permanently protected from uranium mining.
After decades of fighting, and with literally millions of dollars offered to him, that he would have been in trust of as land owner/caretaker, he said no. Pretty bold proud Australian choosing to live his way. -- Koongarra has been included in the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park in Australia's Northern Territory - and permanently protected from mining.

This notion that one highly visible role model should be the championed path to furthering reconciliation is both insulting to the hard-working people who invested their lives in it for 100 years, and also a dumb strategy. It's a recipe for a divisive outcome. And the person chosen to be held up has fulfilled that outcome, unfortunately.
 
There was an invasion though, right? So arguing pedantics over which word should be used to describe it is really just showing your desire for an argument

No, there was no invasion. I've shown pretty logically this to be the case. I'm supposing you accuse me of being a pedant though as a means of seeking impunity from disagreement lest the disagreeing party be "resorting to" something or having something "fallen over" or simply being "pedantic" or some such nonsense. But nah sorry. I just don't agree that there was an invasion on Jan 26th 1788. How you deal with that is your issue.
 
Huh? Who said anything about 40,000 of culture? I thought we were discussing the status of this continent as a country? Clearly one of us here is hung up on race, and it sure ain't me.



I'm not confused in the slightest. For the sake of both of you, I think you need to read what I have written. When I post about "Australia being a country" I am referring to the continent we know as Australia not being a country; i.e. one country. There was no, let's invade this country concept when colonising Australian lands. The continent was just too vast and unknown for that to be a genuine concept. Which is why different people settled in different parts of the continent and it took more than 100 years for them to unite. Perhaps in this modern small-world setting it's a struggle for some to abandon modern perspective and surrender to the confines of passed perspectives, but boy I just see a whole lot of stuff here getting bent out of shape; people included.
So who decides what a "country" is?
 
No, there was no invasion. I've shown pretty logically this to be the case. I'm supposing you accuse me of being a pedant though as a means of seeking impunity from disagreement lest the disagreeing party be "resorting to" something or having something "fallen over" or simply being "pedantic" or some such nonsense. But nah sorry. I just don't agree that there was an invasion on Jan 26th 1788. How you deal with that is your issue.
Well again, you're arguing semantics. The Aboriginals had the land, the Europeans invaded and colonised it. It's not really in dispute.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

All the people saying boo-ing is racist will now all love Sam Newman?


Sam Newman's relevance expired when he was knocked out and walked over like a door mat at his front door by a plumber who he was back dooring with the Blokes Mrs. Coward down in his own home like a dog who had just been beaten with a stick. Weak as piss then and weak as piss now standing on his C Grade celebrity soap box, bestowed upon him by a bogan minded pack of halfwits that actually think the man is funny. Newman is about as funny terminal cancer and any semblance of intelligence was replaced by senility long ago.
 
I almost logged on to reply to the above. How far gone are you, that you honestly believe that in contemporary australia, kids are taught that blacks are inferior or that it is ok to abuse them. Then your comment about about the mother. In your need to cry racism, I'm afraid you've become hateful.

That is a sad thing that in contemporary Australia kids are taught those things. If you think it doesn't happen, you are wrong.
 
No, there was no invasion. I've shown pretty logically this to be the case. I'm supposing you accuse me of being a pedant though as a means of seeking impunity from disagreement lest the disagreeing party be "resorting to" something or having something "fallen over" or simply being "pedantic" or some such nonsense. But nah sorry. I just don't agree that there was an invasion on Jan 26th 1788. How you deal with that is your issue.

Invasion Day proponents are entitled to their opinion-perhaps they could back it up with actions such as returning any lands they currently occupy back to the original owners



But I think they'd rather just lecture on it
 
I am not an Adam Goodes fan for many reasons, whether it be his staging, or his sly little snipes on the field, or his whinging, or even his Australia Day speech (which I found to be more divisive than anything else). The fact that he is a protected speicies and if anybody dares to say something bad against him, that person is obviously a racist, probably annoys me the most.
I personally am not a person who boos, if I was then Thomas would get a good go because of his ducking.
That being said, if the point of all the booing was to let Goodes know that he may not be as popular as he may think, than I think he and everybody else gets it.
Whether we like the man or not, with two brownlows around his neck, the man could obviously play football and isn't the reason we are even on this site, is because we all love football. As this may very well be his last year ("we hope so", I hear some of us say), lets let him have his dignity.
Again, the message has been sent and recieved, by know means do we have to cheer his every move but we also don't have to destroy the bloke.
 
One man's colonization is another man's invasion. Either way, 1) 50,000 years of continuous culture was destroyed practically overnight.

2) And yet we now feel outraged that the descendants of that community have had enough of being called apes.

1) So, you are one of those psuedo-intellects under some romantic illusion indigenous tribes were like latter-day hippies? Living off the land does not mean universal harmony to each other. They were still human beings prone to violence and abhorrent acts, just like other peoples in history.

And always in danger of in-fighting, tribal wars, slaughter and worse (rape etc) over that time period

2) Who is outraged over the slur? It was more that he pointed out a little girl who didn't know better and ran with it. Oh and "That community" -- way to reduce them all to the same entity! You clearly understand what it was like back then ;)
 
No, there was no invasion. I've shown pretty logically this to be the case. I'm supposing you accuse me of being a pedant though as a means of seeking impunity from disagreement lest the disagreeing party be "resorting to" something or having something "fallen over" or simply being "pedantic" or some such nonsense. But nah sorry. I just don't agree that there was an invasion on Jan 26th 1788. How you deal with that is your issue.
So when the Whermacht went into Czechoslavakia in 1938 un-resisted or the Anshluss in Austria un-resisted it wasn't an invasion? This is a leg pull isn't it? Mate stay in LA you have singlehandedly done more for raising the Australian IQ level than more than a century of universal education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top