NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[Laphroaig]

This is a very, very shallow understanding of the nuanced ways in which racism exists.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Even when it is a silly one.

 

[gouki88]

To be fair and for clarity, paraphrasing the comment Kennett "here's some money go and buy a new pair of jeans" is in regard the trend of wearing "fashionably" ripped, torn or worn jeans/clothes. It is a common as dirt line with a decades long history, which cuts through all races and religions and is a comment on fashion not a racist slur.
Only the fashionista should be offended.

It could be taken as a a slur in the wrong (or right) circumstance, but I would think there would have to be prior background.
Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting anyone.
This particular instance is drawing a long bow.

Who are you to say this? A rich old white conservative man sneering at the (in his eyes) classless outfit of the Aboriginal wife of a player at his club could obviously and easily be interpreted in such a manner.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

To be fair and for clarity, paraphrasing the comment Kennett "here's some money go and buy a new pair of jeans" is in regard the trend of wearing "fashionably" ripped, torn or worn jeans/clothes. It is a common as dirt line with a decades long history, which cuts through all races and religions and is a comment on fashion not a racist slur.
Only the fashionista should be offended.

It could be taken as a a slur in the wrong (or right) circumstance, but I would think there would have to be prior background.
Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting anyone.
This particular instance is drawing a long bow.

It's literally what Rioli's missus said.

It triggered her, as an indigenous woman. She was deeply offended by it.


I'm not here to say whether she should or shouldn't be offended - just that she was.

The key point is that just because you don't have racist intentions, you can still inadvertently do racist shit.

And, my other key point is, in fact it's my only point really - is that you can recover from it if you apologise and own it.
But if you do a Jeff and roll with the 'that wasn't racist because I also say it to white people', it only makes it worse.

And to me, it feels like that is where the Clarkson thing is headed. Which won't be good for him if it does.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

365 pages in and it's still simple, no grey area here - one side or the other are liars

That's close to the dumbest post on here.

And fu** me, that's saying something.

 

[Ricketz]

So he’s saying it’s all true but it wasn’t wrong?

No, I am saying he hasn't denied the allegations.

He would have said, I deny the allegations.

 

[gouki88]

You are entitled to your opinion.

Even when it is a silly one.

Please do elaborate on your apparently not so silly one then.

There does not need to be an overt, conscious race-based decision made by anyone for it to be so. Unconscious and institutional racism does exist, despite it bothering you. Your desire to paint a complex issue of our society as something that is black & white, demonstrable by "data", is silly.

The specific targeting of young Indigenous men with young Indigenous wives is quite obviously not just a coincidence.

 

[Ricketz]

You are entitled to your opinion.

Even when it is a silly one.

It's not silly though. If there is a cultural problem with disabled people you don't ask all of your able bodied employees if they have been similarly affected.

 

[Pie eyed]

Who are you to say this? A rich old white conservative man sneering at the (in his eyes) classless outfit of the Aboriginal wife of a player at his club could obviously and easily be interpreted in such a ma

No I am a person who has heard the same thing said since the 90's in a thousand settings.
Why would it matter what colour I am?
You are the one making the assumptions above.
How do you know what Kennett was thinking?
Fact is he probably was not thinking.

As I wrote.
the comment could be interpreted as racist if there was prior form.
Otherwise it is a harmless fashion dig.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's literally what Rioli's missus said.

It triggered her, as an indigenous woman. She was deeply offended by it.


I'm not here to say whether she should or shouldn't be offended - just that she was.

The key point is that just because you don't have racist intentions, you can still inadvertently do racist s**t.

And, my other key point is, in fact it's my only point really - is that you can recover from it if you apologise and own it.
But if you do a Jeff and roll with the 'that wasn't racist because I also say it to white people', it only makes it worse.

And to me, it feels like that is where the Clarkson thing is headed. Which won't be good for him if it does.

I could be wrong, but surely its possible to have an indigenous Karen.
Pardon my ignorance if its not possible.

 

[Laphroaig]

The players that came forward to Jackson were indigenous and believed they were treated that way because of their heritage.

But is that belief correct? There is a very simple way to check. I fail to understand why you could object to finding out if the behaviour was or was not directed only at indigenous players. It is the key to the is it, isn't it decision.

Sam Mitchell recently interviewed on how Clarkson's unreasonable meddling in his personal life nearly drove him out of the Club. This from a past Hawthorn Captain, about as white a man as you'll ever find, and one unlike some former players who displays no fondness for Clarkson.

Racisim is not about actions, it is about motivation for actions. And alleged victims of actions may well be poorly placed to determine that.

 

[the big lebowski]

Please do elaborate on your apparently not so silly one then.

There does not need to be an overt, conscious race-based decision made by anyone for it to be so. Unconscious and institutional racism does exist, despite it bothering you. Your desire to paint a complex issue of our society as something that is black & white, demonstrable by "data", is silly.

The specific targeting of young Indigenous men with young Indigenous wives is quite obviously not just a coincidence.

Were they wives?

 

[Area51]

I defend Clarkson because I want him to make my football team good

This is the most honest post on bigfooty ever.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

365 pages in and it's still simple, no grey area here - one side or the other are liars

If only it was that simple.

 

[sr36]

You keep circling back to this and it remains just as ridiculous. Clarkson’s statement couldn’t be any clearer in denying the events AS REPORTED:

“I didn’t behave in the manner claimed”

“My clear memory of the events is different”

The most rational reading of this is that he recalls the meeting, but denies what he’s alleged to have done there.

You’re indeed wasting your time if you keep trying to convince people apples are oranges.

It may or may not be relevant that in that quote he only actually disputes the manner of his behaviour, not his behaviour itself.

Cross cultural communication can be tricky. A South African English First Language friend of mine moved to Australia for uni. His first job was at a hotel up in the snow fields. His boss said to him "I might get you to clean out the bins." He innocently replied with "Ok. When you make up your mind, let me know." Bringing a death stare from his boss. It can get even more fraught when you're dealing with second language, which some of the Hawks recruits were.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The specific targeting of young Indigenous men with young Indigenous wives is quite obviously not just a coincidence.

But I would also add that even if it was - it doesn't matter.

My boss made a comment to me in jest about 'going home to shag the missus' to celebrate something once recently. No problem.
But if he said the same thing, with the same intent and same context to a woman in the office - big problem.


And I think this is where this mad defence of Fagan and Clarkson is confused. They are not necessarily being accused of being mad raving racists. They're being accused of doing racist shit.

Whether they're actually racists or not isn't the issue.

 

[Laphroaig]

The specific targeting of young Indigenous men with young Indigenous wives is quite obviously not just a coincidence.

I wouldn't say anyone is thinking coincidence. And there is no evidence of "specific targeting". Nobody else has been asked the questions.

The possibility that this is part of a widespread behaviour pattern is at least as likely as specific targeting.

Personally I don't care if Clarkson goes down for being a racist prick or just for being a prick. Suits me fine either way.

 

[gouki88]

No I am a person who has heard the same thing said since the 90's in a thousand settings.
Why would it matter what colour I am?
You are the one making the assumptions above.
How do you know what Kennett was thinking?
Fact is he probably was not thinking.

As I wrote.
the comment could be interpreted as racist if there was prior form.
Otherwise it is a harmless fashion dig.

It would matter what colour you are because if you aren't Indigenous, your ability to relate would obviously be different.

You do not get to decide what grounds make it to be interpreted as racist. It was clearly not harmless, because it caused harm!

 

[gouki88]

Were they wives?

Misspoke (mistyped?) - meant partners.

 

[Area51]

Rather interesting that The ABC did not respond to questions from The Australian re Rusty’s tweet….

I think you are trying to infer something but it's not really clear what? Though I would be surprised to see a news organisation responding to queries from another news organisation on a regular basis - it's not like they would want validate a competing news source.

 

[the big lebowski]

But I would also add that even if it was - it doesn't matter.

My boss made a comment to me in jest about 'going home to shag the missus' to celebrate something once recently. No problem.
But if he said the same thing, with the same intent and same context to a woman in the office - big problem.

That seems a very sexist statement from you.

Surely you can see how, a) you should probably not say that to anyone in a work place

B) a male could be offended by such a statement

C) your blanket assumption that all women are the same and would be offended is pretty poor and probably belongs in the past

 

[the big lebowski]

Misspoke (mistyped?) - meant partners.

Sure mate

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

What a bunfight.

In 363 pages has anybody had the thought that it might be a really good idea to take off the blinkers and ask some other players, preferrably every single listed player past and present, the same questions?

There are not many people who would be more satisfied than I would to see Clarkson burn. Maybe Kennett is one. Which, given the rather odd terms of reference for the Club review could be suspected of being informative.

However. There are (at least) two questions here. One is did the events reported actually happen, or to what extent is what happened consistent with the newspaper report?

Equally important question. Maybe more important. Are the alleged experiences confined to a particular group of players or were the behaviours more widespread?

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the ism industry have to date shown no interest at all in the second question and rushed headlong to the barricades. Which is rather counter productive to the goal of defeating ism.

Was there ever a Black Australia policy where white kids were taken from their families, made to dissociate and told to look forward not back?

Whether you choose to admit it or not, the parallels between what these young indegenous players have reported and the segregation at the hands of the Australian government for thousands of kids rings true for a lot of First Nations people, so it really doesn’t matter if Clarkson decided that he’d do this to all the “underprivileged” draftees or just the black skinned ones, it’s a hark back to the days of “if you want to be accepted by us, you’ll have to forget who you really are”.

 

[Ricketz]

But is that belief correct? There is a very simple way to check. I fail to understand why you could object to finding out if the behaviour was or was not directed only at indigenous players. It is the key to the is it, isn't it decision.

Sam Mitchell recently interviewed on how Clarkson's unreasonable meddling in his personal life nearly drove him out of the Club. This from a past Hawthorn Captain, about as white a man as you'll ever find, and one unlike some former players who displays no fondness for Clarkson.

Racisim is not about actions, it is about motivation for actions. And alleged victims of actions may well be poorly placed to determine that.

I'm not objecting to anything. But I am also not entertaining something that is irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

Racism isn't just about motivations for actions. Systemic racism can produce racist actions without motivation. Now, I am just using this as an example, I am not saying it is what happened - but say Clarkson got one of the families to move to a more affluent suburb because his motivation was that it provided a quieter, more stable environment. That may be true, but it still constitutes a racist action because the family is made to feel that their people are not up to the standards acceptable to Clarkson.

Clarkson can distance himself from the stolen generation policies that removed generational wisdom. He can distance himself from the current inequities in educational and employment opportunities they experience. He can claim he was doing it with the best of intentions - but the action itself is still racist.

 

[sr36]

Who are you to say this? A rich old white conservative man sneering at the (in his eyes) classless outfit of the Aboriginal wife of a player at his club could obviously and easily be interpreted in such a manner.

That gets to the really curly dilemma of the receiver's interpretation versus the intent of the speaker. They both matter, but I think we've shifted too far towards the receiver's interpretation and are giving it too much primacy.

 

[Ricketz]

That gets to the really curly dilemma of the receiver's interpretation versus the intent of the speaker. They both matter, but I think we've shifted too far towards the receiver's interpretation and are giving it too much primacy.

If they were caucasian would it make Kennett less of an arseh*le? People need to watch what they say, and if they don't and it gets perceived badly that is not on the receiver, it is entirely the problem of the sender of the message. Especially when power dynamics are involved.