News Eddie standing down at the end of next season

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Mate some people just choose to believe the worst in people, the person they choose to believe in this case is a drug cheat who has threatened to sue both AFL he's been apart of, his word is gospel.

Exactly. I'm not his biggest fan, but I don't think for one second he is a full on raciest.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

Exactly. I'm not his biggest fan, but I don't think for one second he is a full on raciest.

It's pretty disappointing, it would weigh heavy on his heart too.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

The one specific incident he mentions occurred 22 years ago. The argument states that explicitly.

That's why Eddie had to go?

Don't get me wrong. Davis's comments are more compelling than anything in that report. And what he describes simply should not have happened to him. But does it demonstrate systemic racism 20 years down the line? Seems like a long bow to draw.

Leons words carry much more weight than H's, especially with Collingwood fans, but as you said it was over 2 decades ago, still pretty ordinary though.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

BF loves a bit of blood in the water, TBH though mate i'm actually surprised by the amount of support we've recieved from opposition posters like yourself, it will all blow over soon enough.

I support the requirement for evidence/substantiation.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

I support the requirement for evidence/substantiation.

As do i, unfortunatley that battle is up hill on this site, i for one appreciate your work.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So how are you certain this is systemic racism, as opposed to an individual failure of governance?

According to your definition, systemic racism requires the racism to be inherent. So I'd expect you to demonstrate that the racism was in fact systemic/inherent.

Instead, you've offered a single example that doesn't on its own demonstrate systemic racism. You just label it as such and claim that does the trick.

Because the systems in place were set up in a way as to discriminate against anyone who raised allegations or complaints. Instead of the complainant having a proper avenue to pursue these complaints they were ostracised, victimised and had their character publicly tarnished in the media in an orchestrated campaign.

But sure, that's just a failure of governance

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Because the systems in place were set up in a way as to discriminate against anyone who raised allegations or complaints.

Can you demonstrate this? Does the report say this?

Or are you just asserting it?

The systems were designed to discriminate against anyone who complained? What basis do you have to say that?

Instead of the complainant having a proper avenue to pursue these complaints they were ostracised, victimised and had their character publicly tarnished in the media in an orchestrated campaign.

But sure, that's just a failure of governance

Can you demonstrate that it wasn't?

Come back next week but maybe try to make an argument when you do.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Can you demonstrate this? Does the report say this?

Or are you just asserting it?

The systems were designed to discriminate against anyone who complained? What basis do you have to say that?

Can you demonstrate that it wasn't?

Come back next week but maybe try to make an argument when you do.

Nope didn't say they were designed to discriminate. Again your inability to comprehend the written word and instead read into things what you want to read into them makes having a discussion with you pointless. The facts have been explained, the examples demonstrated, the reasons given for why these were systemic issues and not merely ones of failure of governance. You simply refuse to accept reality, that's your prerogative but it makes you look like a fool on here when you keep asking for examples when they have been provided to you multiple times throughout this thread.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Nope didn't say they were designed to discriminate. Again your inability to comprehend the written word and instead read into things what you want to read into them makes having a discussion with you pointless. The facts have been explained, the examples demonstrated, the reasons given for why these were systemic issues and not merely ones of failure of governance. You simply refuse to accept reality, that's your prerogative but it makes you look like a fool on here when you keep asking for examples when they have been provided to you multiple times throughout this thread.

You said the "the systems in place were set up in a way as to discriminate against anyone who raised allegations or complaints".

What do you mean by that? Can you demonstrate this?

All you do is make assertions you can't support.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You said the "the systems in place were set up in a way as to discriminate against anyone who raised allegations or complaints".

What do you mean by that? Can you demonstrate this?

All you do is make assertions you can't support.

It means the way the systems were set up, whether deliberately or not, were constructed in a way that discriminated against anyone seeking to make a complaint. This, combined with the repercussions for those who did make complaints (in the instance of Lumumba) where they were ostracised, victimised and subject to public attacks on their character in an orchestrated campaign, shows that it is not a mere failure of governance but an example of systemic racism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It means the way the systems were set up, whether deliberately or not, were constructed in a way that discriminated against anyone seeking to make a complaint.

Can you demonstrate this?

This, combined with the repercussions for those who did make complaints (in the instance of Lumumba) where they were ostracised, victimised and subject to public attacks on their character in an orchestrated campaign, shows that it is not a mere failure of governance but an example of systemic racism.

It doesn't show that. This is another example of you making an unsupported assertion. It's all you do.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Can you demonstrate this?

It doesn't show that. This is another example of you making an unsupported assertion. It's all you do.

Yeah, it does show it. I've demonstrated that for you multiple times. The authors of the report demonstrated it. Everyone else can see it but you. See the issue?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah, it does show it. I've demonstrated that for you multiple times. The authors of the report demonstrated it.

You haven't demonstrated anything. Nor does the report. Have you even read it?

All you do is make assertions that you can't support. Using the magic words "systemic racism" doesn't make the case on its own.

 

[Chief]

But does it demonstrate systemic racism 20 years down the line? Seems like a long bow to draw.

What is the definition of “systemic racism” that you’re referencing? It might help move the convo along if you post it. Apologies if you already have and I missed it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What is the definition of “systemic racism” that you’re referencing? It might help move the convo along if you post it. Apologies if you already have and I missed it.

As with systemic corruption, we'd be talking about a problem that is baked into an organisation's systems and structures. That's reasonably broad so I'm more than happy to hear from others who'd seek to refine it further.

Another poster phrased it as a "problem due to issues inherent in the overall system", which is also fine with me. The key word in that sentence is inherent. But that's also quite a high bar - to demonstrate inherent racism within an organisation.

If you take Lumumba's complaints, for example, my question has been whether they reflect inherent/systemic racism at Collingwood or an individual failure of governance/leadership. Some people are happy to simply call it systemic racism without demonstrating that to be the case.

Did you see the recent story about Joel Wilkinson at GC? Is this also proof of systemic racism? Or an individual failure of governance/leadership?

These failures occur at organisations, whether they're sporting clubs, corporations or government bodies. I don't think we can simply call it systemic racism whenever those failures occur without a reasonably high burden of proof to demonstrate that is in fact what's happening.

To pivot back to the parallel example of systemic corruption, imagine the amount of evidence you'd require to prove systemic corruption within a government or a police force or some other organisation. You wouldn't simply point to a single example and claim that proves the problem is systemic. You'd need a pattern of behaviour, all stemming from the same issues baked into the organisation's systems. It's quite a high bar but that's fair enough given the seriousness of the charge. If you say a problem is systemic, it means you have to purge that problem by remaking the organisation or at least many of its systems. I don't accept that we should simply assert systemic racism with no burden to demonstrate the problem is in fact systemic.

 

[butterbing2]

I would concur with Sweet Jesus in a call for something more to back up the claims of systemic racism specific to Collingwood.

My understanding of systemic racism (which may be incorrect) is that it is thought the fundamental explanation for disparities between (racial) groups. There are demonstrable differences in societies between groups in major categories such as health, literacy, employment, rates of pay, crimes/punishment, etc. It is commonly asserted that these differences arise primarily due to racial discrimination with the powerful (white majority) benefiting from their "privilege" and perpetuating racial discrimination through their ingrained patterns of thought and behaviour. The evidence is in the demonstrated disparities and the lived experience of those being discriminated against.

My belief (also may be incorrect) is that the authors of the report believe that systemic discrimination is ubiquitous in Australia and is proven by disparate outcomes for racial groups within Australia. That is their starting point. They then reference Collingwood's poor reputation (as per media reports or specific incidents) and label as "there is something distinct and egregious about Collingwood’s history". Egregious = "outstandingly bad, shocking". This got taken up by a lot of media outlets but the reference is obtuse - it is not something they found through their investigation, this is public opinion and based on a stereotype. The information it is based on was already known. Maybe people already thought Collingwood was outstandingly bad when it came to racism and the report just confirmed this. However, if people were undecided then there really is nothing new uncovered.

Clearly there have been high profile instances of racial discrimination connected with CFC as detailed in the media but of course there would be many times more incidents not documented, both attached to Collingwood and other clubs.

I am frustrated that people have just accepted this report the way the media have reported it. The report itself is limited in scope however people just seem to be happy with the takeaway point that it "proved" Collingwood is systemically racist and now must implement all the directives. The directives even stipulate if I read correctly - quotas for playing list and coaching staff?

For people who think that this report "found" systemic racism at Collingwood, I disagree. At best (or worst) you accept that Australia is systemically racist and the report appears to endorse that Collingwood is particularly bad and details some of the ways that systemic racism is being propagated within the club.

It is possible to believe the personal accounts of racial discrimination given by players and poor handling of raised complaints without accepting the term "systemic racism". Unfortunately I believe this report and its commentary have confused direct discrimination due to racial biases and systemic racism. I think that systemic racism has been assumed from the outset - rightly or wrongly.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You haven't demonstrated anything. Nor does the report. Have you even read it?

All you do is make assertions that you can't support. Using the magic words "systemic racism" doesn't make the case on its own.

It's already been demonstrated, many times in fact. Your constant assertions that "no one has demonstrated anything!!!" really make you seem like you either don't understand the definition or are being wilfully ignorant either due to being purposefully argumentative or for more sinister reasons.

You've been given examples, you don't like them or they don't meet a particular threshold that you demand. But that's only your requirement, it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

As with systemic corruption, we'd be talking about a problem that is baked into an organisation's systems and structures. That's reasonably broad so I'm more than happy to hear from others who'd seek to refine it further.

Another poster phrased it as a "problem due to issues inherent in the overall system", which is also fine with me. The key word in that sentence is inherent. But that's also quite a high bar - to demonstrate inherent racism within an organisation.

You misunderstand the use of the word "inherent" - the quote means there are issues/problems inherent in the system, not that racism is inherent in the system. You seem to take issue with this specific point by claiming that in order for there to be systemic racism it must mean racism is inherent but that is not what it says.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You misunderstand the use of the word "inherent" - the quote means there are issues/problems inherent in the system, not that racism is inherent in the system. You seem to take issue with this specific point by claiming that in order for there to be systemic racism it must mean racism is inherent but that is not what it says.

It's already been demonstrated, many times in fact. Your constant assertions that "no one has demonstrated anything!!!" really make you seem like you either don't understand the definition or are being wilfully ignorant either due to being purposefully argumentative or for more sinister reasons.

You've been given examples, you don't like them or they don't meet a particular threshold that you demand. But that's only your requirement, it has nothing to do with reality.

You don't make any case so the discussion has moved on without you. You had ample opportunity.

Maybe next time, do less bleating and try to make a point or two.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Was there "systemic racism" at the GC Suns as well?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You don't make any case so the discussion has moved on without you. You had ample opportunity.

Maybe next time, do less bleating and try to make a point or two.

I already made the points. I pointed it out for you again and again. The evidence is there for anyone willing to actually look at it instead of being wilfully ignorant.

 

[sprockets]

I would concur with Sweet Jesus in a call for something more to back up the claims of systemic racism specific to Collingwood.

My understanding of systemic racism (which may be incorrect) is that it is thought the fundamental explanation for disparities between (racial) groups. There are demonstrable differences in societies between groups in major categories such as health, literacy, employment, rates of pay, crimes/punishment, etc. It is commonly asserted that these differences arise primarily due to racial discrimination with the powerful (white majority) benefiting from their "privilege" and perpetuating racial discrimination through their ingrained patterns of thought and behaviour. The evidence is in the demonstrated disparities and the lived experience of those being discriminated against.

My belief (also may be incorrect) is that the authors of the report believe that systemic discrimination is ubiquitous in Australia and is proven by disparate outcomes for racial groups within Australia. That is their starting point. They then reference Collingwood's poor reputation (as per media reports or specific incidents) and label as "there is something distinct and egregious about Collingwood’s history". Egregious = "outstandingly bad, shocking". This got taken up by a lot of media outlets but the reference is obtuse - it is not something they found through their investigation, this is public opinion and based on a stereotype. The information it is based on was already known. Maybe people already thought Collingwood was outstandingly bad when it came to racism and the report just confirmed this. However, if people were undecided then there really is nothing new uncovered.

Clearly there have been high profile instances of racial discrimination connected with CFC as detailed in the media but of course there would be many times more incidents not documented, both attached to Collingwood and other clubs.

I am frustrated that people have just accepted this report the way the media have reported it. The report itself is limited in scope however people just seem to be happy with the takeaway point that it "proved" Collingwood is systemically racist and now must implement all the directives. The directives even stipulate if I read correctly - quotas for playing list and coaching staff?

For people who think that this report "found" systemic racism at Collingwood, I disagree. At best (or worst) you accept that Australia is systemically racist and the report appears to endorse that Collingwood is particularly bad and details some of the ways that systemic racism is being propagated within the club.

It is possible to believe the personal accounts of racial discrimination given by players and poor handling of raised complaints without accepting the term "systemic racism". Unfortunately I believe this report and its commentary have confused direct discrimination due to racial biases and systemic racism. I think that systemic racism has been assumed from the outset - rightly or wrongly.

Were there 'terms of reference' set out for those doing the report?

 

[sherb]

I've always seen McGuire as a shameless self-promoter. That is his major priority in life.

If i had to put his priorities in order, it would be this way:
1. McGuire
*A fair gap
2. Collingwood
*Another fair gap
3. The game in Victoria
*A huge gap
4. The game overall

 

[butterbing2]

Were there 'terms of reference' set out for those doing the report?

Our terms of reference were framed as five questions:
1. How effectively did the Club (including staff, Board and players) respond to allegations of racism?
2. Were there appropriate supports provided by the Club to respond to allegations of racism and ensure the cultural safety of all players, staff and Board members?
3. What changes in relevant policies, processes and systems have taken place and have these changes been effective?
4. Are the current policies, processes and systems currently in place adequate?
5. What changes are required to improve the Club’s responses to racism in the future?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You haven't demonstrated anything. Nor does the report. Have you even read it?

All you do is make assertions that you can't support. Using the magic words "systemic racism" doesn't make the case on its own.

‘That is a form of systemic racism’: Buckley admits he was dismissive of Lumumba

Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley says he was unintentionally guilty of a form of systemic racism in being dismissive of Heritier Lumumba’s experience and claims about the club.

www.theage.com.au

Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley says he was unintentionally guilty of a form of systemic racism in being dismissive of Heritier Lumumba’s experience and claims about the club.

Buckley admitted he regretted his demeanour in a 2017 press conference when answering questions about the premiership player’s claims about the club, saying it was the type of moment the recent Do Better report was talking about when discussing a culture of systemic racism at the club.

“There was a presser when I look back in 2017 and it was dismissive and I needed to be better than that,” Buckley said in an interview with the AFL website.

“What I now understand is that is a form of systemic racism, the dismissing and denial of experience is not a direct act, but in many ways it reinforces the pain and trauma that Heritier felt and that [other former players] Andrew [Krakouer] and Leon [Davis] have spoken about. It’s feeling like they don’t have a voice and they don’t have somewhere to go and that’s the systemic aspect of it.

Geez even Bucks gets it yet you're still in denial?

Here's some more light reading for you

Listen to our pain: Davis says it’s time for hard truths at Collingwood

The former Magpie says others don’t have the right to determine how those subject to racism should respond.

www.theage.com.au