Moved Thread Heritier Lumumba Documentary - Fair Game (SBS)

[Thats Wright]

This gets back to my first point, though.

Shaun Burgoyne has never rocked the boat by calling things out in the way that Winwar, Goodes or Lumumba did. I'm not saying he hasn't done good work to promote indigenous rights within the game, not at all, but if you look at how he has done that it has been in a much more understated, polite, non-confrontational way.

Now, you might think that that is the better way to do it. Personally, as someone who is not an indigenous Australian, I don't think it is my place to tell them how to express their frustrations at the racist abuse they receive. How many times did Nicky Winmar cop abuse before he raised his jumper and point to his skin? How many times did Adam Goodes get called an ape before pointing out where in the crowd he heard it said? We have a problem about race. This season we had bananas thrown on to the Adelaide Oval, Edie Betts told to go back to the zoo. It isn't changing fast enough and I don't really think I can judge someone who cops that week in and week out through their lives when they react to it in an emotional way. It certainly doesn't make me want to disregard what they have to say or think that they must be the problem.

When they blend in, when they don't confront us with problems, we are happy for the black men to entertain us. When they don't react to the abuse we send their way about being apes, animals, subhuman, we haven't got a problem. But when they do react, when they lash out or snap back they are hysterical, hypersensitive, making themselves into victims, and we tear them down. They are the problem, not us. It is the pattern I see time and time again and I suspect I'm going to continue seeing it for a while.

Interesting you place Harry alongside Winmar. Probably a ridiculous comparison.

I suppose if you want to live in a world where every short/red/tall/fat/umpire/black/female/disabled/asian/indigenous/poor/addicted person is given free reign to be an arse, then that's your utopia. Surely you have standards of behavior.

As a North supporter I always was amazed at what a great ambassador and person/player Daniel wells was. In contrast I was always shocked by Lindsay Thomas cheating the system and bringing the game into disrepute.

On an individual level, sure it's great that Harry mouths off and plays the victim.

As a community, he's a flog that barely deserves his platform.

 

[Fonzeno1]

This gets back to my first point, though.

Shaun Burgoyne has never rocked the boat by calling things out in the way that Winwar, Goodes or Lumumba did. I'm not saying he hasn't done good work to promote indigenous rights within the game, not at all, but if you look at how he has done that it has been in a much more understated, polite, non-confrontational way.

Now, you might think that that is the better way to do it. Personally, as someone who is not an indigenous Australian, I don't think it is my place to tell them how to express their frustrations at the racist abuse they receive. How many times did Nicky Winmar cop abuse before he raised his jumper and point to his skin? How many times did Adam Goodes get called an ape before pointing out where in the crowd he heard it said? We have a problem about race. This season we had bananas thrown on to the Adelaide Oval, Edie Betts told to go back to the zoo. It isn't changing fast enough and I don't really think I can judge someone who cops that week in and week out through their lives when they react to it in an emotional way. It certainly doesn't make me want to disregard what they have to say or think that they must be the problem.

When they blend in, when they don't confront us with problems, we are happy for the black men to entertain us. When they don't react to the abuse we send their way about being apes, animals, subhuman, we haven't got a problem. But when they do react, when they lash out or snap back they are hysterical, hypersensitive, making themselves into victims, and we tear them down. They are the problem, not us. It is the pattern I see time and time again and I suspect I'm going to continue seeing it for a while.

Is the Shaun Burgoyne way or the Winmar/Goodes/Lumumba way more likely to bring about the kind of change they would all like to see? I don't know the answer to that and I'm a political philosopher, with an interest in social change, so I think about questions like this a lot. I think there are arguments on either side and both have a role to play. Movements for change always have people doing more quiet work behind the scenes or working in a way that is more engaged with the system that is trying to be changed, as well as people who agitate against the system and are more confrontational in their way of drawing peoples' attention to the issue. You can prefer the Burgoyne approach and like him more as a result, but that doesn't mean that on account of disliking the way he goes about it (and so disliking him) Lumumba is necessarily wrong or ought to be ignored.

Thats all well and good and Harry should be able to share his opinion and form his own views but word is he always did this in a devisive manner. He was always pushing his views onto everyone else and tried to get teamates sanctioned when they did things he didn't agree with. There's a right way and a wrong way to invoke change. Discussion, debate and education are different to useing authority and threat to enlighten people. How Is Harry not liking people because they are not the same as him any different to people not liking Harry cos hes different?

 

[Black white]

I know you are, but what am I?


That's about where we're at, yeah?

Well there goes your claim that you are intelligent.
You just displayed the fact that you dont know even know what pronounce means.
I'd suggest its pretty obvious now who the moron is, and who is smarter you or Ed?
Anyway see ya later, i'm sure you must be busy with all your mensa tests.

 

[RobbieK]

Interesting you place Harry alongside Winmar. Probably a ridiculous comparison.

I suppose if you want to live in a world where every short/red/tall/fat/umpire/black/female/disabled/asian/indigenous/poor/addicted person is given free reign to be an arse, then that's your utopia. Surely you have standards of behavior.

As a North supporter I always was amazed at what a great ambassador and person/player Daniel wells was. In contrast I was always shocked by Lindsay Thomas cheating the system and bringing the game into disrepute.

On an individual level, sure it's great that Harry mouths off and plays the victim.

As a community, he's a flog that barely deserves his platform.

I don't think you are fairly characterising what I'm saying and I think it's probably time for the two of us to agree to disagree at this point. I suspect we have pretty different understandings about how people should be allowed to act or what constitutes making an arse of oneself. You don't like people who rock the boat, I think sometimes the boat needs to be rocked. That's all good. I think I'll leave it by just saying that a lot of the time people play the role of the victim because they are the victim, because they have legitimate causes for concern. I tend to err on the side of trusting them rather than doubting them. I won't always be right to do so, but I think I'm more likely to be right than by doing the opposite.

 

[Thats Wright]

I don't think you are fairly characterising what I'm saying and I think it's probably time for the two of us to agree to disagree at this point. I suspect we have pretty different understandings about how people should be allowed to act or what constitutes making an arse of oneself. You don't like people who rock the boat, I think sometimes the boat needs to be rocked. That's all good. I think I'll leave it by just saying that a lot of the time people play the role of the victim because they are the victim, because they have legitimate causes for concern. I tend to err on the side of trusting them rather than doubting them. I won't always be right to do so, but I think I'm more likely to be right than by doing the opposite.

So you'd take this stance on Nick Kyrgios?

Enabling this behavior can bring shame to clubs, countries, people and even hatred for entitled brats. If only it was as simple as giving a leg up or acceptance when necessary.

 

[Luv_our_club]

It is not hard to believe if you look hard enough.

Eddie McGuire is a typical, ignorant, uncultured dumb bloke, who has been very successful through hard work and right place, right time.

Just watch any episode of Millionaire Hot Seat and shake your head as he struggles to pronounce the most rudimentary of non-english words. Words so common that they have been adopted by the English language, but he fails, because they have more than two syllables or too many vowels. He always speaks these words in an insulting, embarrassing and exaggerated accent, so as to disguise the fact that he is a dumb shit. In a fashion that is usually reserved for the schoolyard. Shocking for a guy so well-moneyed and well-travelled. Just shows his willful ignorance.

The fact that dumb shit Eddie occasionally slips up with his words in his role as a public figure should come as no surprise. He is not intelligent enough to contain it 24/7.

I'm just glad he doesn't run my club. He is dogged and astute in his way. He certainly saved Collingwood at a low point and brought them back up. But the idiot in him is still there and leads him to make decisions like appointing his buddy as coach and sticking by that decision.

Is that your best shot at Eddie?

If you going to shoot at the devil make sure you don't miss.....

 

[Bombermania]

I don't think you are fairly characterising what I'm saying and I think it's probably time for the two of us to agree to disagree at this point. I suspect we have pretty different understandings about how people should be allowed to act or what constitutes making an arse of oneself. You don't like people who rock the boat, I think sometimes the boat needs to be rocked. That's all good. I think I'll leave it by just saying that a lot of the time people play the role of the victim because they are the victim, because they have legitimate causes for concern. I tend to err on the side of trusting them rather than doubting them. I won't always be right to do so, but I think I'm more likely to be right than by doing the opposite.

Over the cause of AFL/VFL history there have been plenty of players that have felt unfairly treated by their clubs and maybe Lumumba isn't happy with certain aspects of his relationship with Collingwood but these relationships are two sided, on that bases I would be hesitant to rush into this and take sides without knowing all the facts because some of Lumumba;s own behavior does suggest that he might not be the easiest person to get along with but again that is an assumption.

Lumumba was a regular in the Collingwood side which would suggest that the club rated him as a footballer so this doesn't seem to be the case of a player being prevented from getting games because they didn't see eye to eye with the coach or had upset someone on the match committee.

 

[Bombermania]

So you'd take this stance on Nick Kyrgios?

Enabling this behavior can bring shame to clubs, countries, people and even hatred for entitled brats. If only it was as simple as giving a leg up when necessary.

With respect to Nick Kyrgios, outside of the Davis Cup he is only playing for himself rather than playing for the country.

Nick does have a softer side wheres with Lumumba at times he came across as a bit odd more than anything.

 

[Runnin Blue]

Is that your best shot at Eddie?

If you going to shoot at the devil make sure you don't miss.....

I didn't miss and no, it's not.

 

[RobbieK]

Thats all well and good and Harry should be able to share his opinion and form his own views but word is he always did this in a devisive manner. He was always pushing his views onto everyone else and tried to get teamates sanctioned when they did things he didn't agree with. There's a right way and a wrong way to invoke change. Discussion, debate and education are different to useing authority and threat to enlighten people. How Is Harry not liking people because they are not the same as him any different to people not liking Harry cos hes different?

I think creating change in institutions is really hard. Sometimes change happens gradually over time. Sometimes, though, the system needs a shock or crisis to change. I definitely agree with you that people need to want to come along with you for the change to occur, that is personally the way I tend to go about things as I'm not a confrontational person. But that isn't always possible, and I know in my life there are times when i have felt frustrated by a system that was totally resistent to change, and actually I was once arrested when, at the end of a long "legitimate" political campaign that was totally ignored I, out of frustration, decided to engage in more drastic measures. It sounds like it took some time for Harry to become as vocal about things as he did, that he was getting frustrated by the lack of change occurring, by being ignored or ridiculed when he brought it up, which led to a cycle of action and reaction that ultimately led to his position in the team being untenable. You can put some of the responsibility for that on him, but some goes on the club too.

On your last sentence, it reminds me of recent discussions around what has happened in the US - that the anti-Nazi protesters were made to be the equivalent of the Nazi protesters, that by not tolerating someone's intolerance, you render yourself just as intolerant of the people you are protesting against. I think that is ridiculous. As a society we are moving towards an ideal state in which someone's race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. is not an acceptable grounds for persecution, mockery or discrimination. We aren't going to get there of course, but it is the direction we are moving in. I think it is pretty reasonable in the 21st century to see the views of anyone who would persecute, mock or discriminate based on any of those things as unacceptable and not to be tolerated. We can only protect a tolerant society by not tolerating intolerance.

 

[Bombermania]

This gets back to my first point, though.

Shaun Burgoyne has never rocked the boat by calling things out in the way that Winwar, Goodes or Lumumba did. I'm not saying he hasn't done good work to promote indigenous rights within the game, not at all, but if you look at how he has done that it has been in a much more understated, polite, non-confrontational way.

There is nothing wrong with being outspoken but I would not be putting Lumumba in the same sentence as say Winmer or Goodes.

Both Nicky and Adam come across as well rounded adults that are willing to back themselves, I have never viewed Heritier in that manner and its often the defensive position taken by people that criticism is because someone rocked a boat which is little more than cover for maybe the criticism is valid.

 

[RobbieK]

So you'd take this stance on Nick Kyrgios?

Enabling this behavior can bring shame to clubs, countries, people and even hatred for entitled brats. If only it was as simple as giving a leg up or acceptance when necessary.

If Kyrgios behaved badly as the result of extended frustration due to racist and homophobiic issues that he had been trying to address within the institutions of tennis and had felt ignored and ridiculed as Lumumba clearly does, then I would have some sympathy for him. As he doesn't seem do it for those reasons, I don't. If I was proven to be wrong about that, it would lead me to reassess my reaction.

 

[Thats Wright]

With respect to Nick Kyrgios, outside of the Davis Cup he is only playing for himself rather than playing for the country.

Nick does have a softer side wheres with Lumumba at times he came across as a bit odd more than anything.

We barely accept our greatest of all time being arrogant let alone current top 50 or half back flankers. Even arrogance doesn't fit well. Entitlement and penchant to play the victim are basically forbidden.

 

[RobbieK]

Over the cause of AFL/VFL history there have been plenty of players that have felt unfairly treated by their clubs and maybe Lumumba isn't happy with certain aspects of his relationship with Collingwood but these relationships are two sided, on that bases I would be hesitant to rush into this and take sides without knowing all the facts because some of Lumumba;s own behavior does suggest that he might not be the easiest person to get along with but again that is an assumption.

Lumumba was a regular in the Collingwood side which would suggest that the club rated him as a footballer so this doesn't seem to be the case of a player being prevented from getting games because they didn't see eye to eye with the coach or had upset someone on the match committee.

I don't disagree with what you have said. I have said a number of times that the responsibility for the breakdown in the relationship between Lumumba and Collingwood has to be explained in a way that places responsibility on both sides. The reason why it might look like I'm taking Lumumba's side is that it seems like the mainstream opinion is so strongly against him that to question that position appears more extreme than it actually is.

 

[Bombermania]

I reckon a lot of clubs would've operated that way. Absolutely no commercial aspect really. Would've been very different.

That is part of the story behind why North hate Essendon because Essendon had a group of wealthy supporters who vetoed the purposed merger which delayed North's entry into the VFL, wheres North has never really had wealthy supporters.

Hawthorn use to have a similar problem with the wealthier Hawthorn residents being more likely to support Melbourne although this has largely changed.

 

[RobbieK]

There is nothing wrong with being outspoken but I would not be putting Lumumba in the same sentence as say Winmer or Goodes.

Both Nicky and Adam come across as well rounded adults that are willing to back themselves, I have never viewed Heritier in that manner and its often the defensive position taken by people that criticism is because someone rocked a boat which is little more than cover for maybe the criticism is valid.

I don't think Lumumba has contributed to the game in the same was as those to either, i don't think his message was as eloquent as either of them either. My point was more about the style of their engagement, of being outspoken, disruptive, and, as a result, receiving even more abuse than they were already receiving from people who didn't like what they had to say. That seems to have been a common experience for all of them and it seems to be a major differentiator in how the mainstream interprets them from other indigenous players. It is hard for me not to see that as an example of the institutional racism we are talking about, that the way the character of those individuals is disparaged seems to me to be an attempt to deligitimise their views and opinions

 

[Bombermania]

I don't think Lumumba has contributed to the game in the same was as those to either, i don't think his message was as eloquent as either of them either. My point was more about the style of their engagement, of being outspoken, disruptive, and, as a result, receiving even more abuse than they were already receiving from people who didn't like what they had to say. That seems to have been a common experience for all of them and it seems to be a major differentiator in how the mainstream interprets them from other indigenous players. It is hard for me not to see that as an example of the institutional racism we are talking about, that the way the character of those individuals is disparaged seems to me to be an attempt to deligitimise their views and opinions

Has Lumumba received much criticism besides in response to a few of his comments about mourning some celeb long after they had passed away or for changing his name.

 

[RobbieK]

Has Lumumba received much criticism besides in response to a few of his comments about mourning some celeb long after they had passed away or for changing his name.

Read this thread. He is apparently one of the biggest flogs to ever flog, people think he is a sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectual hipster pushing political correctness into places where it doesn't belong. People don't like him being outspoken on racism and homophobia, they don't like him not being happy when those around him said things that were racist and homophobic, they think he is an attention-seeking, victim-acting drama queen for being upset when his attempts to do anything about the racist or homophobic things being said were met with closed doors or more ridicule. They think he is pretending to have a mental illness.

I think it has been a pretty thorough character assassination.

I'm not saying he is the best guy ever and needs a prize for it. I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, below all that stuff there are actually legitimate issues with the way football culture deals with race, with gender, with sexuality and that we would be better of acknowledging it and doing something about it than pretending it is all a figment of the deranged mind of Heretier Lumumba.

 

[Fonzeno1]

I think creating change in institutions is really hard. Sometimes change happens gradually over time. Sometimes, though, the system needs a shock or crisis to change. I definitely agree with you that people need to want to come along with you for the change to occur, that is personally the way I tend to go about things as I'm not a confrontational person. But that isn't always possible, and I know in my life there are times when i have felt frustrated by a system that was totally resistent to change, and actually I was once arrested when, at the end of a long "legitimate" political campaign that was totally ignored I, out of frustration, decided to engage in more drastic measures. It sounds like it took some time for Harry to become as vocal about things as he did, that he was getting frustrated by the lack of change occurring, by being ignored or ridiculed when he brought it up, which led to a cycle of action and reaction that ultimately led to his position in the team being untenable. You can put some of the responsibility for that on him, but some goes on the club too.

On your last sentence, it reminds me of recent discussions around what has happened in the US - that the anti-Nazi protesters were made to be the equivalent of the Nazi protesters, that by not tolerating someone's intolerance, you render yourself just as intolerant of the people you are protesting against. I think that is ridiculous. As a society we are moving towards an ideal state in which someone's race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. is not an acceptable grounds for persecution, mockery or discrimination. We aren't going to get there of course, but it is the direction we are moving in. I think it is pretty reasonable in the 21st century to see the views of anyone who would persecute, mock or discriminate based on any of those things as unacceptable and not to be tolerated. We can only protect a tolerant society by not tolerating intolerance.

I wasn't saying we should tolerate intolerence at all. Harry has a few mental health issues so maybe he doesn't understand social situations as well as he could. Harry used to get upset team mates having jokes with each other. I am of the opinion you can have a joke about anything as long as no malice is intended and don't have to be PC 100 per cent of the time. People who don't understand that are always going to have a problem with someone. Even the way Harry has waited until Nathan Buckley is at the lowest point of his career to drop a bomb on him reeks of weak character why not say something earlier?

 

[RobbieK]

I wasn't saying we should tolerate intolerence at all. Harry has a few mental health issues so maybe he doesn't understand social situations as well as he could. Harry used to get upset team mates having jokes with each other. I am of the opinion you can have a joke about anything as long as no malice is intended and don't have to be PC 100 per cent of the time. People who don't understand that are always going to have a problem with someone. Even the way Harry has waited until Nathan Buckley is at the lowest point of his career to drop a bomb on him reeks of weak character why not say something earlier?

I don't think you can tell a black person not to be offended by jokes that belittle black people, or a gay person to not be offended by jokes that belittle gay people, or a woman to not be offended by jokes that belittle women etc. etc. and tell them that they, not the culture that accepts the jokes about race, sexuality, gender, etc. are the problem if they are offended.

Those jokes are a reflection of an attitude which sees those minority groups as inferior. If you keep telling the jokes, that attitude is perpetuated, whether that is the intention of the joker or not. Those jokes are reiterations of unconscious prejudices that we have. We are all more prejudiced than we are aware of.

I'm a manager of a team. If any one on my team came to me to tell me that they were uncomfortable because others were making racist, sexist or homophobic jokes I can assure you that I would think the problem was with my team dynamic not making all of its members feel welcome and included and not with that person not fitting in because they can't take a joke. I think that's the way the whole world is moving and I think we are going to be a better place because of it.

 

[Bombermania]

Read this thread. He is apparently one of the biggest flogs to ever flog, people think he is a sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectual hipster pushing political correctness into places where it doesn't belong. People don't like him being outspoken on racism and homophobia, they don't like him not being happy when those around him said things that were racist and homophobic, they think he is an attention-seeking, victim-acting drama queen for being upset when his attempts to do anything about the racist or homophobic things being said were met with closed doors or more ridicule. They think he is pretending to have a mental illness.

I think it has been a pretty thorough character assassination.

I'm not saying he is the best guy ever and needs a prize for it. I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, below all that stuff there are actually legitimate issues with the way football culture deals with race, with gender, with sexuality and that we would be better of acknowledging it and doing something about it than pretending it is all a figment of the deranged mind of Heretier Lumumba.

Being called a frog on bigfooty is pretty common for AFL players and people around the game so much so if we did a list of people never to be called such would be an interesting list.

 

[Malifice]

Being called a frog on bigfooty is pretty common

Ribbit.

 

[Aramis]

I'd be more concerned that this was paid for by the Australian taxpayer

"Oh the return to society will be ten fold!" Because theres nothing more old battler mate Brad working his ass off in some shitty 50k a year job, paying absurd amount of tax, struggling to make ends meet wants to see than an enlightening documentary starring this idiot.

"yeh DW braddles mate, know your struggling to feed your 3 kids but here chuck on this documentary which we paid for with your hard earned"

Fair dinf**kme

 

[Bombermania]

"Oh the return to society will ten fold!" Because theres nothing more old battler mate Brad working his ass off in some shitty 50k a year job, paying absurd amount of tax, struggling to make ends meet wants to see than an enlightening documentary starring this idiot.

"yeh DW braddles mate, know your struggling to feed your 3 kids but here chuck on this documentary which we paid for with your hard earned"

Fair dinf**kme

I guess the money could be better spent on say a survey

 

[Aramis]

I guess the money could be better spent on say a survey

Only as long as it was making a whole sector of the public feel like 2nd class citizens.