Club History AFL greats Kevin Sheedy and Terry Daniher named in Krakouer brothers' racism class action

[boncer34]

Why wait this long?

Because barely a decade ago some people still thought it fine to boo an Aboriginal player.

Why not wait till society has become more mature and collectively turns it's nose up at racism?

 

[Call Me Cake]

So is lying to protect your image.

How is that even remotely similar?

If you point to an empty table and claim there is a 20 cent coin, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's there, it's not for me to prove that it isn't when you're the one who made the claim.

I feel as though you're a little detached from reality. Which makes sense why you have such a club-identity crisis.

 

[ghostdog]

So they're not just arbitrarily targeting Kevin then? He was one of a few?

And the explanation for naming Sheeds is pretty clear. Not arbitrary at all.

Soz, I get you. Arbitrary was probably the wrong word. I agree, naming Sheedy, Merrett, Duckworth and T. Daniher is specific, not arbitrary.

 

[ghostdog]

Collusion is a real thing.

Especially when people stand to benefit monetarily at the expense of someone's reputation.

Is collusion not a thing if people stand to benefit from preserving their reputation?

 

[Call Me Cake]

Why not wait till society has become more mature and collectively turns it's nose up at racism?

This has been the case for ages now. We have had courts for a long time, and the anti-defamation act has been in place for a long time as well. "Society" isn't majority-racist like you think it is. Usually when someone is racist that person is pretty much outcasted the moment it's brought to light. We have seen that time and time again. The fact that you're pushing this narrative as if it isn't common for the wide community to reject racism is frankly ridiculous. It isn't 1950 anymore and it hasn't been for a long time.

The very fact that such a claim needs proof and why someone would vehemently defend against it makes pretty clear of the magnitude of how seriously society takes it and it's been that way for decades.

 

[boncer34]

How is that even remotely similar?

If you point to an empty table and claim there is a 20 cent coin, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's there, it's not for me to prove that it isn't when you're the one who made the claim.

I feel as though you're a little detached from reality. Which makes sense why you have such a club-identity crisis.

Ok let me put it you like this.

Lying to protect your reputation is a real thing.

Especially when the person lying stands to benefit monetarily by maintaining their reputation.

 

[boncer34]

This has been the case for ages now. We have had courts for a long time, and the anti-defamation act has been in place for a long time as well. "Society" isn't majority-racist like you think it is. Usually when someone is racist that person is pretty much outcasted the moment it's brought to light. We have seen that time and time again. The fact that you're pushing this narrative as if it isn't common for the wide community to reject racism is frankly ridiculous. It isn't 1950 anymore and it hasn't been for a long time.

The very fact that such a claim needs proof and why someone would vehemently defend against it is sheer proof of the magnitude of how seriously society takes it and it's been that way for decades.

I never said society is majority racist. Some doesn't mean majority.

I also never said anything you're claiming I'm saying actually. All I've said is society is more mature now than it was 10+ years ago.

BTW Tex Walker? Outcasted? Or still running around?

 

[ghostdog]

This has been the case for ages now. We have had courts for a long time, and the anti-defamation act has been in place for a long time as well. "Society" isn't majority-racist like you think it is. Usually when someone is racist that person is pretty much outcasted the moment it's brought to light. We have seen that time and time again. The fact that you're pushing this narrative as if it isn't common for the wide community to reject racism is frankly ridiculous. It isn't 1950 anymore and it hasn't been for a long time.

The very fact that such a claim needs proof and why someone would vehemently defend against it makes pretty clear of the magnitude of how seriously society takes it and it's been that way for decades.

The majority of people in this country decided last year that it was not prudent to constutionalise Aboriginal people advising the government on matters affecting Aboriginal people - to maintain a system where decisions are made for them, not by them. Very 1950ish.

 

[yodellinhank]

How is that even remotely similar?

If you point to an empty table and claim there is a 20 cent coin, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's there, it's not for me to prove that it isn't when you're the one who made the claim.

I feel as though you're a little detached from reality. Which makes sense why you have such a club-identity crisis.

You can choose to believe it's there or not. There's no burden on me to prove anything. It might not be there and I think it is. We might have different ideas of what constitutes an empty table.

You can choose to start and remain in a position of disagreement. I'd rather continue to try to work towards mutual understanding.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I never said society is majority racist. Some doesn't mean majority.

Your entire post was based upon this notion that the wait was due to waiting for society "to catch up" and "be less racist" so as to make it more "acceptable" to bring it up. That entire premise relies on this idea that society hasn't been anti-racist for a long time now, and that it hasn't taken it seriously for a long time now. News flash, it has. Racists are shunned. That is why people want to defend against it and why being accused of such a thing is horrible for the person being accused of it. That is because it has ramifications due to the society being so not-racist.

Waiting so long is suspicious enough to assume it may have been so due to the collusion yet taking place, as well as being seduced by this societal trend in thinking that we've become more softer to a burden of proof and seeing an easier payday than before.

 

[Call Me Cake]

The majority of people in this country decided last year that it was not prudent to constutionalise Aboriginal people advising the government on matters affecting Aboriginal people - to maintain a system where decisions are made for them, not by them. Very 1950ish.

Nothing to do with race, and everything to do with it's efficiency, the fact that it was a permanent amendment to the constitution, the fact that a lot of Indigenous Australians came out and didn't agree with it (and people should only vote for something so drastic and permanent to the constitution if there is no doubt amongst the community it's meant to serve whatsoever). As well as how it was constructed (Indigenous Australians should have voted first, then the rest of Australia should have voted on that).

The fact that you think it was due to society being "racist" is your paranoia, and the very reason why we have such stupid ideas of giving people power based on words alone. It's about competition to you, not about what's right.

 

[boncer34]

Your entire post was based upon this notion that the wait was due to waiting for society "to catch up" and "be less racist" so as to make it more "acceptable" to bring it up. That entire premise relies on this idea that society hasn't been anti-racist for a long time now, and that is hasn't taken it seriously for a long time now. News flash, it has. Racists are shunned. That is why people want to defend against it and why being accused of such a thing is horrible for the person being accused of it. That is because it has ramifications due to the society being so not-racist.

Waiting so long is suspicious enough to assume it may have been so due to the collusion yet taking place, as well as being seduced by this societal trend in thinking that we've become more softer to a burden of proof and seeing an easier payday than before.

You're putting words into my mouth to rant against. Take the time to consider why you need to do that.

 

[Call Me Cake]

You can choose to believe it's there or not. There's no burden on me to prove anything. It might not be there and I think it is. We might have different ideas of what constitutes an empty table.

You can choose to start and remain in a position of disagreement. I'd rather continue to try to work towards mutual understanding.

Maybe true, but not if the ramifications of who believes what can cause an entire person's life to be upside down and destroyed (which is only possible if the majority takes racism seriously). If your 20 cent coin can cause someone's life to be destroyed, then bring proof. Otherwise, it is an empty table, just as it was before you walked up claiming otherwise. The burden of proof is on you.

And just as how it is in court during murder trials for example, if there is even one shred of doubt, then the jury does not convict. There is a reason why this is the case, because ramifications matter.

 

[ghostdog]

Your entire post was based upon this notion that the wait was due to waiting for society "to catch up" and "be less racist" so as to make it more "acceptable" to bring it up. That entire premise relies on this idea that society hasn't been anti-racist for a long time now, and that is hasn't taken it seriously for a long time now. News flash, it has. Racists are shunned. That is why people want to defend against it and why being accused of such a thing is horrible for the person being accused of it. That is because it has ramifications due to the society being so not-racist.

Waiting so long is suspicious enough to assume it may have been so due to the collusion yet taking place, as well as being seduced by this societal trend in thinking that we've become more softer to a burden of proof and seeing an easier payday than before.

This rationale ignores trauma. Is a woman claiming historical sexual assault also to be presumed to be looking for a payday? What about a victim of a paedophile? Can they also have 'waited too long?'

 

[Call Me Cake]

This rationale ignores trauma. Is a woman claiming historical sexual assault also to be presumed to be looking for a payday? What about a victim of a paedophile? Can they also have 'waited too long?'

Are you seriously comparing this with rape and child molestation?

You've lost the plot.

 

[yodellinhank]

Maybe true, but not if the ramifications of who believes what can cause an entire person's life to be upside down and destroyed (which is only possible if the majority takes racism seriously). If your 20 cent coin can cause someone's life to be destroyed, then bring proof. Otherwise, it is an empty table, just as it was before you walked up claiming otherwise. The burden of proof is on you.

And just as how it is in court during murder trials for example, if there is even one shred of doubt, then the jury does not convict. There is a reason why this is the case, because ramifications matter.

You'll have to point me towards all of the wrongly accused racists who have had their lives turned upside down, the wealthy aboriginals who have made their fortune from false accusations?

 

[ghostdog]

Nothing to do with race, and everything to do with it's efficiency, the fact that it was a permanent amendment to the constitution, the fact that a lot of Indigenous Australians came out and didn't agree with it (and people should only vote for something so drastic and permanent to the constitution if there is no doubt amongst the community it's meant to serve whatsoever). As well as how it was constructed (Indigenous Australians should have voted first, then the rest of Australia should have voted on that).

The fact that you think it was due to society being "racist" is your paranoia, and the very reason why we have such stupid ideas of giving people power based on words alone. It's about competition to you, not about what's right.

I disagree. Efficiency would have been the vote being carried and working out the nuts and bolts later. The right muddied the waters and the government didn't prosecute the case well enough.

Our society is inherently institutionally racist. Our entire system was imposed on Aboriginal people on the basis that it was believed to be superior to anything that already existed. Any notion that Aboriginal law may actually exist was completely ignored. It is a system founded in racism.

 

[ghostdog]

Are you seriously comparing this with rape and child molestation?

You've lost the plot.

It's about trauma, the existence and occurence of which you casually ignore.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I disagree. Efficiency would have been the vote being carried and working out the nuts and bolts later. The right muddied the waters and the government didn't prosecute the case well enough.

Agree to disagree. When people are in doubt, they always voted no. This has been the case for many referendums pertaining to many things. Historically many referendums don't go through and this is due to people not being 100% certain of it. Just as there were many factors that caused doubt about the recent referendum, it's efficiency, the people it was supposed to represent rejecting it and a lack of trust in the government to do it right. But of course, that doesn't fit your narrative that you obviously have stubbornly had for so long as evidenced by the following:

Our society is inherently institutionally racist. Our entire system was imposed on Aboriginal people on the basis that it was believed to be superior to anything that already existed. Any notion that Aboriginal law may actually exist was completely ignored. It is a system founded in racism.

And herein lies your inherent bias. You've conditioned yourself to believe this for so long and will die on this hill to the point that you'll even equate words to rape and child molestation. Nothing will convince you otherwise.

If your paranoia that society is inherently racist was true then there would be no serious reason to be so defensive about such racism accusations. Here you have what we call a "logic fail".

Fact of the matter is the majority of society is not racist and hasn't been so for so long. This is why such acts are taken seriously by most and why even the notion of acting in such a way is enough to make people ostracize you from their community, groups and workplaces.

You have a personal invested interest to keep your contradictory logic-fail paranoia going in the same way that a person will continue to insist they have "no hope" for themselves despite people telling them they do in order to keep attracting sympathy and upholding the lie they've sold themselves that they've tried everything they could to improve themselves when they haven't. Anyway, getting off-topic.

 

[Call Me Cake]

You'll have to point me towards all of the wrongly accused racists who have had their lives turned upside down, the wealthy aboriginals who have made their fortune from false accusations?

I never said that it always happens. I said that the possibility is there and must be assessed, and not just merely disregarded and tossed to the side as if one's word is the holy grail at all times.

These people may very well end up being proven to have done things, but questions must be asked, it must be done right, and I prefer to live in a world where people are innocent until proven guilty as I'm sure the majority of sensible people still want to as well.

Anyway, I have given my opinion on the matter and will no longer engage in it.

 

[ghostdog]

Agree to disagree. When people are in doubt, they always voted no. This has been the case for many referendums pertaining to many things. Historically many referendums don't go through and this is due to people not being 100% certain of it. Just as there were many factors that caused doubt about the recent referendum, it's efficiency, the people it was supposed to represent rejecting it and a lack of trust in the government to do it right. But of course, that doesn't fit your narrative that you obviously have had for so long stubbornly as the following:



And herein lies your inherent bias. You've conditioned yourself to believe this for so long and will die on this hill to the point that you'll even equate words to rape and child molestation. Nothing will convince you otherwise.

If your paranoia that society is inherently racist was true then there would be no serious reason to be so defensive about such racism accusations. Here you have what we call a "logic fail".

Fact of the matter is the majority of society is not racist and hasn't been so for so long. This is why such acts are taken seriously by most and why even the notion of acting in such a way is enough to make people ostracise you from their community, groups and workplaces.

You have a personal invested interest to keep your contradictory logic-fail paranoia going in the same way that a person will continue to insist they have "no hope" for themselves despite people telling them they do in order to keep attracting sympathy and upholding the lie they've sold themselves that they've tried everything they could to improve themselves. Anyway, getting off-topic.

None of your psycho analysis dealt with any of the facts I just gave you. I gave facts. Below is Arthur Phillip's Proclamation to the Aborigines. It outlines the nature of British law, but its imposition on Aborigines was non-consultative and dismissive of Aboriginal law. It presumes the superiority of British law and is thus racist by definition. There's no paranoia in any of my opinions here. This is fact.


I'll talk about facts with you anytime. I will stop short of making judgments about your character. I don't even know you. You also don't know me, so you can back off now.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I will stop short of making judgments about your character.

Bit rich coming from someone who has judged the majority of society as racist.

Anyway agree to disagree. Moving on.

 

[yodellinhank]

I never said that it always happens. I said that the possibility is there and must be assessed, and not just merely disregarded and tossed to the side as if one's word is the holy grail at all times.

These people may very well end up being proven to have done things, but questions must be asked, it must be done right, and I prefer to live in a world where people are innocent until proven guilty as I'm sure the majority of sensible people still want to as well.

Anyway, I have given my opinion on the matter and will no longer engage in it.

Then consider the possibility there's a coin on the table.

 

[JayJ20]

This has been the case for ages now. We have had courts for a long time, and the anti-defamation act has been in place for a long time as well. "Society" isn't majority-racist like you think it is. Usually when someone is racist that person is pretty much outcasted the moment it's brought to light. We have seen that time and time again. The fact that you're pushing this narrative as if it isn't common for the wide community to reject racism is frankly ridiculous. It isn't 1950 anymore and it hasn't been for a long time.

The very fact that such a claim needs proof and why someone would vehemently defend against it makes pretty clear of the magnitude of how seriously society takes it and it's been that way for decades.

It's not as easy as saying "they could've spoken up then". Indigenous people had their children forcefully taken away for being indigenous only a decade prior. For all they know, things may have gone back to how it was. It's easy to speak about it with the benefit of hindsight, but they wouldn't have felt that security. I know I certainly wouldn't have.

I said the following on the main board to give perspective on Indigenous trauma.

The racism experienced by indigenous people is a whole different class, which is why this is taken more seriously despite the length of time.

There should be no racism of any kind, but Indigenous people have serious generational trauma from all the things they've been through. The government policy that took indigenous children away, now termed the Stolen Generation, only ended in 1969, which is a decade before the alleged incident.

I'd want Essendon to address this even 40 years later because why did they ever feel comfortable saying these things? "It was like that back then" is not good enough.

I'm African in Australia and yes I faced racism growing up but it's not the level of systemic racism that indigenous people faced.

You're talking about personal experience and individual race-based bullying which is bad and unacceptable, but when your entire community is broken apart physically and mentally for a century then that's a different level. I moved to a country full of white people so instances of racism was expected for me (not that it's any less traumatic), but it's a different kind of racism when your people are forcefully brought to a country (e.g African Americans) or when a group of people come to your land and break your people down (e.g Native Americans, Indigenous Australians, Apartheid South Africa and currently the Palestinians).

Whilst many of us may feel the effects of racism, I'm not surprised that they feel aggrieved even 40 years later. Their community will keep remembering that.

Not trying to diminish yours or anyone else's experience, but just offering another perspective on why this type of pain can carry much longer in populations like African Americans and indigenous populations.

I genuinely get so heart broken every time I remember what Indigenous Australians went through. I feel it on a deep level and I feel no loyalty to the AFL or Essendon when it comes to repairing Indigenous trauma. And to think they were possibly called slurs and discriminated against at their workplace in their homeland but they kept silent so they could support themselves/families. The second part is just an assumption.

Honestly, I don't know what response I expect from the AFL, Essendon, Carlton and all of the people involved, but I strongly urge them to approach this with empathy and compassion rather than being combative and dismissive.

 

[brutus76]

It was rampant in the 80s and 90s by all clubs.

Look at interviews with the Krakouers, Winmar, Gilbert McAdam, Michael McLean, Longy etc.

But getting players to admit it or providing evidence of such won't be easy.

Hopefully Dillon gets on the front foot and great and fair outcomes are the result for the current and future of the game and it's participants