Opinion Heretier Lumumba

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Royal Sampler said:
On reading this reply and re-reading your post, I may have misinterpreted. I thought you were equating calling someone a “Ranga” to calling a Jew a “Kike”, whereas you were equating “Chimp” to “Kike” (I suspect). Clearly, racially motivated discrimination has the potential to be more hate-based than picking on someone’s appearance, so yeah nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

yep.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

frizzle said:
How come money always makes people feel better when they are offended? Funny that huh?
For all the pomp & ceremony on his twitter account, in the end he wanted another payday.
Click to expand...
If you ask those parents who let their kids have sleepovers at Michael Jackson's house, they'll tell you that money makes having your kids molested feel better also.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
On reading this reply and re-reading your post, I may have misinterpreted. I thought you were equating calling someone a “Ranga” to calling a Jew a “Kike”, whereas you were equating “Chimp” to “Kike” (I suspect). Clearly, racially motivated discrimination has the potential to be more hate-based than picking on someone’s appearance, so yeah nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

Both come from a place of hate and designed to hurt the person targeted, the differing factor is the rest of history and prejudices against race hate vs bullying.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheGreatGrundy said:
If indigenous, the answer would be no. But because he is not, it doesn't matter. Just like 'Chimp' for Bob Skilton. But had he been indigenous AND said to the boys 'Call me Choco!' - what then?
Click to expand...
Maybe Skilton should sue South Melbourne.
Maybe Mick Nolan should sue North Melbourne.
All I can see is Harry wants one thing Dollars $$$
 
magpie_marty said:
Maybe Skilton should sue South Melbourne.
Maybe Mick Nolan should sue North Melbourne.
All I can see is Harry wants one thing Dollars $$$
Click to expand...
Mick Nolan the 'galloping gasometer'! Lou Richards gave him the name. Nothing racist about it but I suppose it could be seen as a slur against fat people.

If Harry loses, does he have to pay costs for the AFL and Collingwood? I'd like to see that!
 
TheGreatGrundy said:
Mick Nolan the 'galloping gasometer'! Lou Richards gave him the name. Nothing racist about it but I suppose it could be seen as a slur against fat people.

If Harry loses, does he have to pay costs for the AFL and Collingwood? I'd like to see that!
Click to expand...

Look I have no idea what took place at his time at Collingwood.
But this is the world we live in have a great night TheGreatGrundy
I respect your views.
Marty
 
magpie_marty said:
Look I have no idea what took place at his time at Collingwood.
But this is the world we live in have a great night TheGreatGrundy
I respect your views.
Marty
Click to expand...
'Have a great night!' By myself watching a couple of footy teams I don't particularly like!

Well Marty, if Lumumba doesn't get a payout at the preliminary meeting of the parties involved in the case, we will find out what did go on at the club during Harry's time there. If, indeed, anything did.
 
TheGreatGrundy said:
If he in fact asked to be called chimp, as has been claimed, I don't see calling him 'chimp' a racist act.
Click to expand...

Hey TGG :). I think it is a bit more complex than that. Consider the observer of this name calling. For arguments sake take the more extreme example of a young indigenous person as observer. For them the name calling might reinforce that no matter who they are, they are defined and degraded by the racial background. I don't think what constitutes racism can be solely defined by the "victim", the "perpertrator" or combination of just those two.

I’m not knowledgeable on the ethics around racism. My focus/concern here isn’t the name calling. It is more what happened post H. raising this in a meeting. Did it make a change in how he was viewed or treated at the club? The name calling might have stopped but if players/management, evenly subtly, viewed/treated H as a drama queen then for him that might have been interpreted as racism.

Most importantly for me is how the club dealt with the issue this year. They appeared to undermine his credibility and deny, or at least fail to acknowledge there was anything to see. Bucks must have known about the name calling from the meeting. If he didn’t that would indicate it wasn’t taken with seriously or with a reasonable level of awareness. If he did know about it why was his comment to the media solely he never heard it used? He is a thoughtful and articulate person. Apparently they have learnt a lot since H was at the club: if that is where Bucks is currently at I have to wonder how bad was it back then?

jackcass said:
Yeah, I'm not sure it's as simple for H as you suggest. He's suing the organisations, not the individuals, so for mine I think he needs to demonstrate that the organisations were aware of it, and that they did nothing to remedy his issues. My understanding is that that wasn't the case. I think the internal review could aid him in this and he's timed his launching of the case to coincide with the panels release of the review. Ultimately though, I think the weight of the organisations he's taking on will count against him should it get to court and he could be significantly out of pocket should he lose.
Click to expand...
You are probably right in regards to the court case. I’m not a big fan of the legal system, don’t believe it has much connection to justice or truth. I think H wins – or perhaps more relevantly the pies lose – if even a tiny bit of mud sticks. If it turns out Bucks’ comment he never heard the name used was misleading in that he may not have heard it used but knew it had been then that is enough mud. H. may not win the court case but publicly the notion we are still the club we were over two decades ago will gain traction.

If H settles out of court or walks away with a heap of money in his pocket rather than donate to charity I will join others on this thread with the character assassination.
 
We've had the various "non discrimination" training modules in my office and the snippets of this case coming out sound like the "how not to" scenarios in those sessions.

We will be screwed if we as a club let any player (let alone the captain) call a dark-skinned player "chimp". The club has a n obligation to make sure no one says that stuff, and knows not to say it. The law is extremely clear on the point. If Lumumba complained during his time at the club, or afterwards, and we did nothing, we are doubly screwed.

Don't like the law? How nice, go vote for Pauline Hansen.

H has mental health issues, quite apart from whether or not he's a "good bloke". Maybe stay TF off that fellas, people kill themselves because their health issues get mocked.

Another reason people going after his character can have a chill pill and a lie down is it doesn't matter whether you want to have a beer with him, if we stuffed up he can have us on toast.

Should have fixed this years again, if we knew and did not fix it, we are cactus.
 
manicpie said:
Ok, so he was born in Brazil, whats the difference to the Congo?, Either way he should have an attitude of Gratitude. You think being born in Brazil makes it different than Congo. The bloke is dope smoking, mushroom eating idiot. Now go back to bed
Click to expand...

Did you really post that. Goodness me. There is an opportunity to reflect before Posting. I would encourage you to use that option.
 
noideaatall said:
Hey TGG :). I think it is a bit more complex than that. Consider the observer of this name calling. For arguments sake take the more extreme example of a young indigenous person as observer. For them the name calling might reinforce that no matter who they are, they are defined and degraded by the racial background. I don't think what constitutes racism can be solely defined by the "victim", the "perpertrator" or combination of just those two.

I’m not knowledgeable on the ethics around racism. My focus/concern here isn’t the name calling. It is more what happened post H. raising this in a meeting. Did it make a change in how he was viewed or treated at the club? The name calling might have stopped but if players/management, evenly subtly, viewed/treated H as a drama queen then for him that might have been interpreted as racism.

Most importantly for me is how the club dealt with the issue this year. They appeared to undermine his credibility and deny, or at least fail to acknowledge there was anything to see. Bucks must have known about the name calling from the meeting. If he didn’t that would indicate it wasn’t taken with seriously or with a reasonable level of awareness. If he did know about it why was his comment to the media solely he never heard it used? He is a thoughtful and articulate person. Apparently they have learnt a lot since H was at the club: if that is where Bucks is currently at I have to wonder how bad was it back then?


You are probably right in regards to the court case. I’m not a big fan of the legal system, don’t believe it has much connection to justice or truth. I think H wins – or perhaps more relevantly the pies lose – if even a tiny bit of mud sticks. If it turns out Bucks’ comment he never heard the name used was misleading in that he may not have heard it used but knew it had been then that is enough mud. H. may not win the court case but publicly the notion we are still the club we were over two decades ago will gain traction.

If H settles out of court or walks away with a heap of money in his pocket rather than donate to charity I will join others on this thread with the character assassination.
Click to expand...
Hi noideaatall! How ironic I should read your greeting as I am sitting down to eat my stir fry which contained one of the kaffir lime and lemongrass shots you recommended in the covid thread! I got fresh supplies today because Coles had them on special for $3, meaning each shot costs only 75c.

As to Lumumba, he made a bit of a habit in his final year of being a drama queen. There was his objection to the lesbian reference to Seedsman's hairstyle, then his farewell speech about being the prince and obviously the meeting about his nickname. Buckley also supposedly accused him of throwing Eddie under a bus regarding his King Kong remarks.

If you have never heard it before, try and listen to the interview he did with Waleed Aly (I couldn't find it to post), in which he also failed to provide evidence or concrete examples to support his claims and was incensed that Peter Hellier could even suggest that he should do so or otherwise have it appear that he was merely smearing a great club.

Lumumba makes accusations then expects evidence for those claims to be self evident, and almost takes it as a personal affront should anyone suggest he needs to support those claims. Needless to say, he accuses Aly of being a sympathiser of white supremacy after the interviewer disappointed him by not blindly supporting Lumumba's claims. I would be very wary of jumping on Harry's bandwagon lest the wheels fall off and leave you sitting on the ground on your bum. (https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...w/news-story/497a1669d55aeed82648818119dedfab)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top