Mega Thread Oh yeah ... did you know there are 17 other teams? - General AFL discussion #9 - Blues posters only

[Just Kreuzing]

Really? Shoulder strapping or sling visible?

Nah he has shred that...

 

[Blue__Balls]

Good on him. Deserves it after the s**t that club has put him through (not that he's blameless of course).

Deserves to witness a disgraceful collapse from the Aussie cricket team?

Reckon I'd rather have sat through last week's game against Hawthorn again...

 

[Jatz]

Deserves to witness a disgraceful collapse from the Aussie cricket team?

Reckon I'd rather have sat through last week's game against Hawthorn again...

Bloody hell, I wouldn't. Yikes. I've almost wiped that completely!

 

[Windhover]

Got nothing to do with taste. I've been present at Indigenous Australian, Maori and Masai tribal ceremonies at various times in my life. I found them fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable.

Would you agree that the Haka is more "aggressive" in tone than a Hawaiian hula dance? If not then you're obviously being pedantic for the sake of your argument.

Of course the Haka is "more "aggressive" in tone" than a hula dance. My point, which you seem to agree with, is that BOTH are entertainment. Neither is intended to convey any real threat. Neither was Adam Goodes intending to convey any real threat. Hence the "war dance" was NOT inherently aggressive. Get it now?

I'm trying to have a genuine discussion on this topic, and while some people are putting forward well-considered responses, you're sitting here nitpicking terminology in order to score cheap points.

Well, if you are trying to have a genuine discussion (and I do not suggest otherwise), perhaps this is not your proudest effort.

 

[Windhover]

I don't 'condemn' anything he did - I take issue with the AFLs response, or more to the point, the lack of consistency when administering the sport.

I am sorry you quibble with my use of the word "condemn" to describe your attitude to Goodes' war dance. Pray tell what word you would use, given that you assert, and I quote you to avoid a further accusation of "putting words in [your] mouth"

"Should've been fined/warned by the AFL for aiming it at the crowd - or more accurately, for aiming it at the opposition fans"

Enough putting words in my mouth, especially whilst presuming my ignorance. Windhover - I probably won't respond to you again for this reason.

So tell me my precious, why should Goodes be fined or warned if NOT to condemn him for the war dance?

 

[Blue__Balls]

Of course the Haka is "more "aggressive" in tone" than a hula dance. My point, which you seem to agree with, is that BOTH are entertainment. Neither is intended to convey any real threat. Neither was Adam Goodes intending to convey any real threat. Hence the "war dance" was NOT inherently aggressive. Get it now?



Well, if you are trying to have a genuine discussion (and I do not suggest otherwise), perhaps this is not your proudest effort.

Does something have to be a genuine threat of physical harm for the media or general public to perceive it as "aggressive" in nature? Circumstances would indicate not. We're talking about how the act was perceived, and whether that perception could have been predicted. I haven't suggested we charge Adam Goodes with assault or threatening bodily harm, just that he, and we, would be well served by him taking responsibility for approaching his statement in a rather clumsy manner.

All you've done so far is criticise and debate terminology. It's not adding anything worthwhile to the conversation.

 

[BluStreak]

Being aware that cultural differences mean you need to actively drop your own 'communication filters' and try to understand what is being said/done from the perspective of the other person is what's needed. That only comes with the old but true cliche... education.

Look I agree, but communication is a two way street.
It is generally accepted that the onus is on the initiator of the communication to frame the message so that the recipients can understand it.

 

[Windhover]

Does something have to be a genuine threat of physical harm for the media or general public to perceive it as "aggressive" in nature? Circumstances would indicate not.

If there is NO genuine threat of physical harm in an action outside observers of the action may well perceive the action to be a genuine threat. So, 2 kids play fighting might be perceived as being aggressive to each other when in fact both are just having fun.
In this instance if no one in the crowd itself felt any genuine threat of physical harm, pray tell how anyone watching it on tv could possibly have felt any different?
The answer to my question is they couldn't. What explains the response is that people feel threatened, not by the physical aggression of Adam Goodes actions but by the social construct of those actions. They feel threatened to think that a proud indigenous footballer, in reconciliation round, would assail their worldview confrontationally. They would want to think that we have all said sorry and that it is all over, just like Bronwyn Bishop hopes.

Adam Goodes war dance suggests their is still currency in the notion that there is on-going racial discrimination. The ho-ha confirms this. Had everyone simply acknowledged the war dance as a timely reminder, in reconciliation round, of the need to be vigilant to avoid future discrimination, we could all reflect proudly in the thought that the reminder was barely necessary.

We're talking about how the act was perceived, and whether that perception could have been predicted. I haven't suggested we charge Adam Goodes with assault or threatening bodily harm, just that he, and we, would be well served by him taking responsibility for approaching his statement in a rather clumsy manner.

Adam Goodes is not our servant. Unless and until such "war dances" can be observed with the same enjoyment for its entertainment value as the haka, the need has not gone away for the "war dances" to be continued to the discomfort of some.

You don't get social change without social discomfort. And non-violent social discomfort is a very good thing. We all need our precepts challenged.

 

[Quazza]

anyone see this? Truly spine tingling stuff and a bit of a tear jerker. . A whole school performs the Haka for a teacher who passed away



NZ is soooooooo far ahead of us it's frightening

 

[Blue__Balls]

If there is NO genuine threat of physical harm in an action outside observers of the action may well perceive the action to be a genuine threat. So, 2 kids play fighting might be perceived as being aggressive to each other when in fact both are just having fun.
In this instance if no one in the crowd itself felt any genuine threat of physical harm, pray tell how anyone watching it on tv could possibly have felt any different?
The answer to my question is they couldn't. What explains the response is that people feel threatened, not by the physical aggression of Adam Goodes actions but by the social construct of those actions. They feel threatened to think that a proud indigenous footballer, in reconciliation round, would assail their worldview confrontationally. They would want to think that we have all said sorry and that it is all over, just like Bronwyn Bishop hopes.

Adam Goodes war dance suggests their is still currency in the notion that there is on-going racial discrimination. The ho-ha confirms this. Had everyone simply acknowledged the war dance as a timely reminder, in reconciliation round, of the need to be vigilant to avoid future discrimination, we could all reflect proudly in the thought that the reminder was barely necessary.



Adam Goodes is not our servant. Unless and until such "war dances" can be observed with the same enjoyment for its entertainment value as the haka, the need has not gone away for the "war dances" to be continued to the discomfort of some.

You don't get social change without social discomfort. And non-violent social discomfort is a very good thing. We all need our precepts challenged.

Be very careful twisting my words like that - you know all too well that I am not inferring that he is anyone's servant, property, slave or anything of the sort. The fact that you choose to create that inference is, frankly, quite disturbing.

The rest of your post - I agree with for the most part. You're saying people should have interpreted his action differently, I'm saying he could have framed them differently. Both can be correct.

When it comes to how people watching on TV could interpret it as aggressive when those at the game didn't, well, that's the age we live in. We've got journalists (professional or amateur) who take offense on behalf of social groups for the sake of selling a story. People know this, and unfortunately it means those people should take some responsibility for ensuring the intent behind their actions is clear.

It's not ideal, but I'm more interested in shutting down the immature nonsense that this whole debacle has created so that the discussion can turn to the wider message, rather than the unwarranted vilification of one man.

 

[ShanDog]

anyone see this? Truly spine tingling stuff and a bit of a tear jerker. . A whole school performs the Haka for a teacher who passed away



NZ is soooooooo far ahead of us it's frightening

Great video out there of a NZ Army unit doing the haka in their service dress to a vehicle carrying the coffin of a fallen soldier.

Hits me right in the feels.

 

[El Topo]

There's a reason showboating to incite opposition supporters is discouraged in European football leagues, in the NFL and (until now) in the AFL. It tends to get ugly... case in point.

While the accusation gets thrown around that Goodes escapes criticism by making everything about race, all I've seen him do in the aftermath of the war dance is act indignant- the labelling and s**t flinging has been entirely a product of our lazy opportunistic media. If the AFL had treated him like any other player, these same media outlets would have slammed the organisation for being a pack of ignorant whitebread racists. The whole thing is a no win affair- well, except for the folks selling ad-space.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

The haka is beautiful. I love it.
I also love how much respect is given to the Maori culture in New Zealand.

 

[Jatz]

The haka is beautiful. I love it.
I also love how much respect is given to the Maori culture in New Zealand.

To be fair, they don't do the haka after they score a try.

I could be wrong (I usually am) but if Goodes had organised to do this pre match (or even mentioned he'd do it after the goal), there wouldn't be the outrage that came with it.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

To be fair, they don't do the haka after they score a try.

I could be wrong (I usually am) but if Goodes had organised to do this pre match (or even mentioned he'd do it after the goal), there wouldn't be the outrage that came with it.

I'm not referring to the haka or the Maori culture in a sporting sense, it's a general observation of New Zealand.

 

[Jatz]

I can't believe I agree with Eddie McGuire on this.

 

[happydude]

There's a reason showboating to incite opposition supporters is discouraged in European football leagues, in the NFL and (until now) in the AFL. It tends to get ugly... case in point.

While the accusation gets thrown around that Goodes escapes criticism by making everything about race, all I've seen him do in the aftermath of the war dance is act indignant- the labelling and s**t flinging has been entirely a product of our lazy opportunistic media. If the AFL had treated him like any other player, these same media outlets would have slammed the organisation for being a pack of ignorant whitebread racists. The whole thing is a no win affair- well, except for the folks selling ad-space.

This covers it, show boating blown out of proportion

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I can't believe I agree with Eddie McGuire on this.

What did E McG say?

 

[Jatz]

What did E McG say?

“People are being called racists who are clearly not racists and other people are being called left-wing, bleeding hearts sort of thing when all you’re doing is showing a bit of empathy.

“There’s an argument on all sides. We could discuss for the next three hours and not get to a conclusion and not get to half of all the threads that are in this.

“There is one big thread that we need to get to and that is to get on and move forward."

It may be seen as sitting on the fence but I agree with him. I do hope the boos stop but I think he's right.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

“People are being called racists who are clearly not racists and other people are being called left-wing, bleeding hearts sort of thing when all you’re doing is showing a bit of empathy.

“There’s an argument on all sides. We could discuss for the next three hours and not get to a conclusion and not get to half of all the threads that are in this.

“There is one big thread that we need to get to and that is to get on and move forward."

It may be seen as sitting on the fence but I agree with him. I do hope the boos stop but I think he's right.

The problem is that:
People don't like to be labelled
People are throwing labels at each other in an attempt to discredit
People on both sides are struggling to have a rational debate.

I think that saying "get on and move forward" can be counterproductive, because it's yet another example of sweeping Indigenous issues under the rug, and quickly walking over the rug so no one notices.

 

[Jatz]

The problem is that:
People don't like to be labelled
People are throwing labels at each other in an attempt to discredit
People on both sides are struggling to have a rational debate.

I think that saying "get on and move forward" can be counterproductive, because it's yet another example of sweeping Indigenous issues under the rug, and quickly walking over the rug so no one notices.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't want to move on with the Indigenous issues - they're very clearly there. I'm not sure that in sport is the best way to deal with it. Again, I'm probably wrong but I think the discussions would be far more productive when taken away from the emotion of sport.

Your first 3 lines are absolutely spot on.

Anyway, I don't mean to debate this for the next 10 pages so I'll step out of this discussion here (ps. Love your work Mebby!)

 

[Blue__Balls]

The problem is that:
People don't like to be labelled
People are throwing labels at each other in an attempt to discredit
People on both sides are struggling to have a rational debate.

I think that saying "get on and move forward" can be counterproductive, because it's yet another example of sweeping Indigenous issues under the rug, and quickly walking over the rug so no one notices.

Is this an indigenous issue though - or an issue that happens to be linked to an indigenous person?

 

[ShanDog]

Reckon the main issues with the discussions are because people are aiming at different goalposts.

 

[ShanDog]

My point exactly Blue__Balls lol

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Is this an indigenous issue though - or an issue that happens to be linked to an indigenous person?

Telling an Indigenous person to effectively 'get back in their box' is indicative of a wider Indigenous issue.