Politics Black Lives Matter

Remove this Banner Ad

As has been pointed out by others, how do you think a player who decided that they were going to sit out Anzac Day commemorations or Jane McGrath Day at the cricket would be received?

I'd never thought about it like that, it's a fair point.

There's something about Jane McGrath day that sits a bit uneasy with me, how all the dickhead commentators dress up in the outrageous pink stuff, I dunno, sort of seems tacky. But yeah a commentator not wearing pink that day would stand out like dogs balls.
 
I don't need to make an argument, it's established fact. He did fight on the side of slaveholders, but not to uphold the institution of slavery.
Go read his letters to his wife, and while you're there, read up on non-sequiturs.

I do find it amusing that you're telling me I'm "free" to make an argument. Clearly, that principle is not one you agree with, if your conduct in this thread is any indication.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/
 
I've actually read that article before, it's an old one.
It's an interesting viewpoint, but seems more about dissolving the myth of him being "kindly" than in refuting his stated views. Much like Guardian articles, it does use anecdotal information to support a view not necessarily supported by other facts.

Remember, Abe Lincoln kept slaves too, and the emancipation proclamation itself was as much a political masterstroke meant to aid the war effort as one of pure humanitarianism. I've expounded upon that in the past too.

The American Civil War is a fascinating study in human complexity.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Okay then, so what was Robert E Lee fighting for? Feel free to make your argument, and I say that as someone who agrees with that principle otherwise I wouldn't have said it, I was just making sure that you knew that just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't welcome you making an argument.
You, I'll get back to later, unless I get distracted. I have a reasonable idea regarding Lee's motivations, but it is mostly guesswork based upon what I know and what I can infer from what he (and many, many others) said and did. I do know, as has been established, that he did not support slavery.

As I said, it's a complex issue. Perhaps far more complex for the southerners who fought on the side of the Confederacy than for the Union troops.

But right now, I have to go and get a haircut.
 
do the Black Lives Matter supporters in the nba who benefit from chinese forced labour and refuse to speak out against China have any integrity?

curious.
Does their hypocrisy make their claims that police exercise undue violence against minority groups in America incorrect?
 
You, I'll get back to later, unless I get distracted. I have a reasonable idea regarding Lee's motivations, but it is mostly guesswork based upon what I know and what I can infer from what he (and many, many others) said and did. I do know, as has been established, that he did not support slavery.

As I said, it's a complex issue. Perhaps far more complex for the southerners who fought on the side of the Confederacy than for the Union troops.

But right now, I have to go and get a haircut.
Insofar as statues go, which is where this current discussion started, Robert E Lee doesn't deserve to be commemorated this way, for despite whatever his personal feelings may have been, he betrayed his country and fought to preserve the institution of slavery. The simple fact of the matter is that the war was fought over slavery. The only right being fought over was the right to own slaves.
 
no - this is the second time i have answered your question.

will you answer mine or just skirt around it?
I really don't care about their hypocrisy or their lack of integrity. I view them both as peripheral, not relevant, unnecessary to the issue at hand. Everyone is hypocritical in some ways; humans are deeply inconsistent creatures.

So, if you want to prove or call them hypocritical, feel free. Doesn't really impact anything around their platform.
 
I really don't care about their hypocrisy or their lack of integrity. I view them both as peripheral, not relevant, unnecessary to the issue at hand. Everyone is hypocritical in some ways; humans are deeply inconsistent creatures.

So, if you want to prove or call them hypocritical, feel free. Doesn't really impact anything around their platform.

this just sums up the woke movement.

do as i say, not as i do.

let’s everyone take a knee for awareness while we continue pocketing $100m from modern day slavery and child labour.

BD19E9F8-1DC2-487E-B4F4-7F015241D16A.jpeg
 
this just sums up the woke movement.

do as i say, not as i do.

let’s everyone take a knee for awareness while we continue pocketing $100m from modern day slavery and child labour.

View attachment 1270185
And that just sums you up.

Better to win a rhetorical point than be correct.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

And that just sums you up.

Better to win a rhetorical point than be correct.

i’m both.

racism in the us is a problem, as it is in many places.

not sure what a south african cricketer refusing to emulate a gesture made famous by a known hypocrite in a stadium likely built by modern day slaves in dubai will do about it.
 
i’m both.

racism in the us is a problem, as it is in many places.

not sure what a south african cricketer refusing to emulate a gesture made famous by a known hypocrite in a stadium likely built by modern day slaves in dubai will do about it.
No, you're not. You've taken each available opportunity here to attack BLM for their hypocrisy, lack of integrity, etc.

You are here to throw mud, to see if you can get any to stick.
 
Insofar as statues go, which is where this current discussion started, Robert E Lee doesn't deserve to be commemorated this way, for despite whatever his personal feelings may have been, he betrayed his country and fought to preserve the institution of slavery. The simple fact of the matter is that the war was fought over slavery. The only right being fought over was the right to own slaves.
Seems to me that I've given you a hand to drag yourself out of the mud of ignorance and oversimplification, and as soon as I let go of that hand and disappear for a while you go for another wallow. So, why bother.

Anyway. I have a certain admiration for De Kock too. It's all to do with a hierarchy of values.
You can go ahead and call me a racist of you like. Knock yourself out.
 
ABC radio was discussing white privilege in sports a while ago, apparently the big advantage is that multigenrrational white families grew up around sporting clubs and therefore the kids are more likely to be involved. That is why even migrants from India etc who traditionally play cricket in their old country find it hard to get involved here.

Even in AFL you see that private school kids are overrepresented in the draft or it seems that way.
 
You've taken each available opportunity here to attack BLM for their hypocrisy, lack of integrity
So? They have earned some criticism along the way on those fronts. The time they called Justin Trudeau a white supremacist terrorist comes to mind. This was before the blackface.
 
In this case the 'bigger impact' has been nothing more than to cloud the issue and give 'certain types' a platform to deride the entire BLM movement in a way they otherwise wouldn't have had. He should have just done what he was told in the first place in this instance.

If he "clouded the issue" that's a good thing. It's common to assume that taking the knee is just a stand against racism. It's more complex than that.

There are various aspects to the BLM movement. Some of which is quite unsavoury. Its supporters have desecrated statues, set cities on fire and attacked people who don't support their cause.

BLM is a disparate political movement that at times has supported extremist views such as the defunding of or abolishing the police, dismantling the nuclear family structure, the radical restructuring of wealth.

Taking the knee is clearly associated with BLM but the links to the extreme politics and violent activism seem to get forgotten about. Sports men and women should not be coerced to endorse extremist political movements. The emphasis needs to shift onto what taking the knee means and justifying why any players should support it.
 
Adam Goodes must torture a Swans fan like you.
Quite the opposite, my favourite Swans player of all time, deserved Australian of they year, unfairly treated and run out of the game by racist bogans.

I am happy indigenous players are over represented, just thought people were getting too selective with their demographics
 
Seems to me that I've given you a hand to drag yourself out of the mud of ignorance and oversimplification, and as soon as I let go of that hand and disappear for a while you go for another wallow. So, why bother.

Anyway. I have a certain admiration for De Kock too. It's all to do with a hierarchy of values.
You can go ahead and call me a racist of you like. Knock yourself out.
Is this meant to be a rebuttal or a concession?
 
If he "clouded the issue" that's a good thing. It's common to assume that taking the knee is just a stand against racism. It's more complex than that.

There are various aspects to the BLM movement. Some of which is quite unsavoury. Its supporters have desecrated statues, set cities on fire and attacked people who don't support their cause.

BLM is a disparate political movement that at times has supported extremist views such as the defunding of or abolishing the police, dismantling the nuclear family structure, the radical restructuring of wealth.

Taking the knee is clearly associated with BLM but the links to the extreme politics and violent activism seem to get forgotten about. Sports men and women should not be coerced to endorse extremist political movements. The emphasis needs to shift onto what taking the knee means and justifying why any players should support it.
So you are against anti-racist gestures then. Not surprised.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top