Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
ant555 said:
well there you go. we have had conversations with different groups of people that seem to have different opinions.
Click to expand...

I would have spoken directly to representatives of over 50,000 Aboriginal people. The vast majority are a resounding Yes for the voice.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It does seem a bit uneasy our footy club taking a political position.
Sure it's a worth while cause, but I wouldn't be surprised if people look back in 20-30 years time and think footy clubs have overstepped promoting causes not about football.
Essentially, it goes against the democratic principle as no Essendon member voted for this.

And on that note, what are these core values that footy clubs seem to be pushing that have some kind of political overtures?
it reminds me of a work colleague that went to Google on a tour once, was shown all these fancy technologies. At the end of the tour someone in the group asked what is the most important product going at Google. The Google employee immediately stated that Googles number one goal is to be the best search engine in the world. Seeing all this political talk, I'm not sure what people at Essendon would say in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Chief Hopper said:
I should and will re-write that. I meant in general about football clubs promoting causes not about football.
Click to expand...
But there of plenty of causes that we promote already. ANZAC Day, the entire Doug Nicholls round, Melbourne's Pink Day etc.

To say that our employees are so overburdened by political messages that the priority isn't the actual game is a large amount of mayo.
 
dank420_ said:
But there of plenty of causes that we promote already. ANZAC Day, the entire Doug Nicholls round, Melbourne's Pink Day etc.

To say that our employees are so overburdened by political messages that the priority isn't the actual game is a large amount of mayo.
Click to expand...
Especially when they're different groups of employees
 
ant555 said:
I am slightly conflicted about the voice. I would like to see it become something that works but there is a lot of division amongst first nations people on it as well. Now my circumstances are that my late Grandma was 1/4 Indigenous Australian so I have some history in the family . I do not identify as First Nation at all. My dad came here from Scotland as a baby and I am a white Australian that has some Indigenous heritage. I have some cousins and second cousins that are First Nations people due to one of my mums brothers marrying and First Nations women and also my mums cousins marrying First Nations people. I have spoken to them about it and the response is mixed as well. They like the idea of being recognized in the constitution but actually wonder exactly what it will do and how effective it will be. Some seem to think it is more driven by inner city folk who have no real conception of the struggles in the communities away from the big smoke. Maybe there is still some scientism around ATSIC and the issues it had.
At the end of the day I will be voting for whatever my Indigenous family feels is the way to go. Personally I think the whole process has been tarnished by the politics of supporting one view or another and not the government setting up a referendum where the factors of both sides are viewed and all sides of politics allowing their members to vote how they feel is best.
Click to expand...

The "divisions" I see are:

85% support the voice. More mainstream folks.

10% almost support the voice, but see it as a pointless gravy train if there is no treaty first.

5% loudly disapprove of the voice, but are mainly right-wing contrarians on that gravy train where "conservative" outlets fund them to say "Look I'm not racist, an Aboriginal person is also saying this".

(I'm not accusing you of anything, just commenting generally)
The "real Aboriginal lives out in the bush" stuff is pretty offensive. Most Aboriginal people, just the rest of us, live in cities and large towns. Many of them are "inner city lefties".

I'm leaning towards the voice, but my kids are a bit "meh" about it. They are very much in the Lydia Thorpe camp and are likely to vote against it. Seeing my connection to Aboriginal Australia is my kids and they are very active in the community, including one who is working on the Victorian treaty process, I might vote how they tell me to. I kind of feel rude as a white person deciding on it.

It clearly is a very minimalistic approach to dealing with centuries of genocide committed against the many nations who have never ceded sovereignty of this land. There should be a treaty made with each nation and some sort of compensation for the broken families and lost inheritance.

On the other hand, I fear that if it is voted down the treaty process will be pushed further back, like the republic was. Perhaps this is an important step towards that.

Having said that, any mainstream organisation like the Essendon FC, any AFL club to be honest, to not support it would be pretty crap. It didn't have to be a political issue, the right-wing media in any Murdoch country is overrepresented. Dutton could have supported it as at least half his part does.

One of the strangest facts is that despite the overwhelming popularity of the voice among Aboriginal people, only 40% of non-Aboriginal people think that a majority of Aboriginal people support it. That is some powerful right-wing propaganda!
 
ant555 said:
I am slightly conflicted about the voice. I would like to see it become something that works but there is a lot of division amongst first nations people on it as well. Now my circumstances are that my late Grandma was 1/4 Indigenous Australian so I have some history in the family . I do not identify as First Nation at all. My dad came here from Scotland as a baby and I am a white Australian that has some Indigenous heritage. I have some cousins and second cousins that are First Nations people due to one of my mums brothers marrying and First Nations women and also my mums cousins marrying First Nations people. I have spoken to them about it and the response is mixed as well. They like the idea of being recognized in the constitution but actually wonder exactly what it will do and how effective it will be. Some seem to think it is more driven by inner city folk who have no real conception of the struggles in the communities away from the big smoke. Maybe there is still some scientism around ATSIC and the issues it had.
At the end of the day I will be voting for whatever my Indigenous family feels is the way to go. Personally I think the whole process has been tarnished by the politics of supporting one view or another and not the government setting up a referendum where the factors of both sides are viewed and all sides of politics allowing their members to vote how they feel is best.
Click to expand...
It's pretty simple to me. Should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a recognised voice in the parliament, on matters that effect them? Should they or not?

For me the answer to that is yes. All the other stuff about how it will function can be sorted out, and refined, and further refined if needs be, later.

What's important to me is to get that voice enshrined in thd constitution.
 
fishardansin said:
The "divisions" I see are:

85% support the voice. More mainstream folks.

10% almost support the voice, but see it as a pointless gravy train if there is no treaty first.

5% loudly disapprove of the voice, but are mainly right-wing contrarians on that gravy train where "conservative" outlets fund them to say "Look I'm not racist, an Aboriginal person is also saying this".

(I'm not accusing you of anything, just commenting generally)
The "real Aboriginal lives out in the bush" stuff is pretty offensive. Most Aboriginal people, just the rest of us, live in cities and large towns. Many of them are "inner city lefties".

I'm leaning towards the voice, but my kids are a bit "meh" about it. They are very much in the Lydia Thorpe camp and are likely to vote against it. Seeing my connection to Aboriginal Australia is my kids and they are very active in the community, including one who is working on the Victorian treaty process, I might vote how they tell me to. I kind of feel rude as a white person deciding on it.

It clearly is a very minimalistic approach to dealing with centuries of genocide committed against the many nations who have never ceded sovereignty of this land. There should be a treaty made with each nation and some sort of compensation for the broken families and lost inheritance.

On the other hand, I fear that if it is voted down the treaty process will be pushed further back, like the republic was. Perhaps this is an important step towards that.

Having said that, any mainstream organisation like the Essendon FC, any AFL club to be honest, to not support it would be pretty crap. It didn't have to be a political issue, the right-wing media in any Murdoch country is overrepresented. Dutton could have supported it as at least half his part does.

One of the strangest facts is that despite the overwhelming popularity of the voice among Aboriginal people, only 40% of non-Aboriginal people think that a majority of Aboriginal people support it. That is some powerful right-wing propaganda!
Click to expand...
So true.
The right's strategy with this has been, all along, to seek to cloud the real issue with questions of its function.

They think people will err on the side of caution and the Murdoch media has worked hard to magnify the opinions of a few, to help non-Aboriginal people feel justified in voting against.

Most people had not even heard of Lydia Thorpe before this.

I remember the Mabo fear campaign, when they tried to convince everyone they could lose their backyard.

I remember the Wik fear campaign, when they told everyone that farmers would be driven off the land.

Now the fear campaign is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will seek to stifle every piece of legislation that goes through.

Really, it could simply mean, for example, that there is finally some movement on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

Should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a voice in the parliament, on matters that affect their communities, enshrined in the constitution? Yes or no. Too easy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

As far as I understand it, it just means that the next bunch of dickheads that get into government can't hit delete on whatever body happens to be in situ at the time.

There might be problems, and they might need fixing, and we can vote in future elections based on those policies, but at least it will be there and they can't easily get rid of it.
 
honestly stunned that the club that pushed for the Dreamtime game and supports Micheal Long’s long walk event has come out in support of something that is supportive of aboriginal rights.

stunned I say.
 
ghostdog said:
So true.
The right's strategy with this has been, all along, to seek to cloud the real issue with questions of its function.

They think people will err on the side of caution and the Murdoch media has worked hard to magnify the opinions of a few, to help non-Aboriginal people feel justified in voting against.

Most people had not even heard of Lydia Thorpe before this.

I remember the Mabo fear campaign, when they tried to convince everyone they could lose their backyard.

I remember the Wik fear campaign, when they told everyone that farmers would be driven off the land.

Now the fear campaign is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will seek to stifle every piece of legislation that goes through.

Really, it could simply mean, for example, that there is finally some movement on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

Should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a voice in the parliament, on matters that affect their communities, enshrined in the constitution? Yes or no. Too easy.
Click to expand...

Do not want to pick a fight here but my family members are not Lydia Thorpe . They are not involved in any political party. They are First Nations people living in Northern Victoria and have some issues with what is proposed . I think all First Nations people want a voice. Just seems that some of them have concerns about how this version will work and if it will actually do anything in particular for them. I want to it to work. The fact that Pauline Hanson is in the no camp makes me want to vote yes without even looking at it. However if my family and members of their community and their elders have some concerns I will be voting with them. There are First Nations people who are not radical activists who still have questions and where not totally behind the all aspects of the Uluru Statement. I hope it gets up and works. I am simply listening to family .
 
Last edited:
fishardansin said:
The "divisions" I see are:



One of the strangest facts is that despite the overwhelming popularity of the voice among Aboriginal people, only 40% of non-Aboriginal people think that a majority of Aboriginal people support it. That is some powerful right-wing propaganda!
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with "right-wing" propaganda. It's just basic common-sense. Lots of left-wing people oppose the voice - Graham Richardson for example, and I'm sure there are Labor MPs that oppose it, but aren't allowed to vote against it or they get kicked out of that party. I think dividing the country by race is bloody horrible and I'd hope most sensible people would think the same. As far as I'm concerned there is only one race - the human race - and constitutionally enshrining race in the constitution would be a disaster. No group should have special powers based solely on race. I don't think all people that vote yes are racists (although some hard-core leftist race activists might be, but they are a minority), but I do think the idea they are voting for is racist. We need to spread the idea that race and genetics don't matter, and all that does matter is the content of your character. It would be so regressive and divisive if this yet vote ever got up.

Certainly, whether you want it or not, no sporting organization should be offering political opinions. Highly inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
Dan26 said:
It's got nothing to do with "right-wing" propaganda. It's just basic common-sense. Lots of left-wing people oppose the voice - Graham Richardson for example, and I'm sure there are Labor MPs that oppose it, but aren't allowed to vote against it or they get kicked out of that party. I think dividing the country by race is bloody horrible and I'd hope most sensible people would think the same. As far as I'm concerned there is only one race - the human race - and constitutionally enshrining race in the constistution would be a disaster. No group should have special powers based solely on race. I don't think people that vote yes are racists (although some hard-core leftist race activists might be, but they are a minority), but I do think the idea they are voting for is racist.

Certainly, whether you want it or not, no sporting organisation should be offering political opinions. Highly inappropriate.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have said Graham Richardson was left wing in any event.
 
tandino said:
I wouldn't have said Graham Richardson was left wing in any event.
Click to expand...

That's not really even the point. It's a matter of principle. If you want everyone treated equally, you presumably wouldn't want race enshrined in the constitution, because that's apartheid by definition. That's what the word apartheid means - "apart from"

Imagine a train coming into a station. And that station represents equality for all. You get closer to the station, but for some reason the train speeds up and goes past the station. Now it's out of control heading to destination unknown.
 
I know this is just a continuation of an older thread, but it does seem odd to have the prefix "Roast" on this thread with the updated subject heading....
 
Dan26 said:
That's not really even the point. It's a matter of principle. If you want everyone treated equally, you presumably wouldn't want race enshrined in the constitution, because that's apartheid by definition. That's what the word apartheid means - "apart from"

Imagine a train coming into a station. And that station represents equality for all. You get closer to the station, but for some reason the train speeds up and goes past the station. Now it's out of control heading to destination unknown.
Click to expand...
Well it's a point you asserted to defend your position. Anyway.

Is that train on the same line as the abortion coercion station that only the black kids get out at?
 
tandino said:
I wouldn't have said Graham Richardson was left wing in any event.
Click to expand...
Uhhh yeah but anyway that's not the point. The point is it's racist...
 
Dan26 said:
No group should have special powers based solely on race
Click to expand...
The 'special power' of having a voice on legislation that affects them.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Similar threads

Lore
  • Poll
Win Prizes The Scales 2024 Essendon Board Poster of the Year - Congratulations Bonce!
Replies
19
Views
1K
Beerfish
Beerfish
Lore
  • Locked
Win Prizes The Scales 2024 Essendon Board Poster Of The Year - Nomination Thread
Replies
18
Views
916
Lore
Lore
Nuggs Bunny
Competitions 2025 Essendon Board My Boy Draft
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
ALL IN
ALL IN
BrunoV
Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
2K
Kong
Kong
VelvetSledge
  • Locked
MVP 2024 BigFooty Essendon Board POTY Award - ZACH MERRETT wins again!
Replies
24
Views
3K
VelvetSledge
VelvetSledge
Lore
Mod. Notice Welcome Nuggs Bunny, new Essendon board mod!
Replies
13
Views
1K
Vindicater
Vindicater
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sport The Essendon Board’s Paris 2024 Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sporno 4 Pyros

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top