Play Nice Buddy speaks out

Remove this Banner Ad

Opts said:
Maybe this thread should be moved to the "Hypocracy of the Left" thread.

Below is what you said Connolly. It is clearly a political thread that you started. You even decided to use the words "invasion day" instead of Australia Day. Many people find that offensive. I think it is YOU who are a little confused.

Buddy Franklin has made an important and courageous statement about Invasion Day. No doubt the booing will start as the "we are not racists but politics should be kept out of sport" mob targets our great footballer. No doubt the POS running the game will be slow to take a principled stand, busy importing cheap nannies and the McGuire morons will have a field day. This time the club should not hesitate to issue a statement supporting Franklin and his statements. Maybe Longmire can mumble a press release cliché or two. We cant allow the garbage that was thrown at Adam Goodes to be repeated.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hares-emotion-charged-Australia-Day-post.html

You can't eat your cake and have it too. You are free to start a thread voicing your opinions but you and the other posters must respect the opinions of others in return. If you want to argue it then it should be done without the personal attacks and branding people racists. Is that so difficult for everyone to comprehend?
Click to expand...
I didn't start a thread to voice my "opinions". I started it to congratulate an extremely courageous public statement by our champion footballer. And make a plea for us and the club to do everything we can to prevent another Adam Goodes travesty. The point of the thread is that Buddy has made a courageous and to him quite dangerous statement. I base this on the awful treatment of our other indigenous champion footballer Adam Goodes who was abused by racists who then gutlessly claimed they weren't racists but wanted to keep "politics out of sport". Mate I demonstrated against the Springboks and apartheid. We were accused of bringing politics into sport. Its an old refrain. It will be used against Buddy. By the way I refuse to use the term Australia Day because of the upset and emotional harm that phrase does to my indigenous friends and many in that community. Which was what Buddy's statement was all about. Heard this all before mate. As a club and supporters we are morally obligated to get around Buddy and get on the front foot. I will make a small bet with you if you like - the booing will increase against him this season - no doubt because he "stages for free kicks etc etc". The club cannot allow what happened to Adam be repeated here. You called Buddy's statement "disappointing". I cried when I read it. That's not an "opinion". Lets leave it there.
 
connolly said:
I didn't start a thread to voice my "opinions". I started it to congratulate an extremely courageous public statement by our champion footballer. And make a plea for us and the club to do everything we can to prevent another Adam Goodes travesty. The point of the thread is that Buddy has made a courageous and to him quite dangerous statement. I base this on the awful treatment of our other indigenous champion footballer Adam Goodes who was abused by racists who then gutlessly claimed they weren't racists but wanted to keep "politics out of sport". Mate I demonstrated against the Springboks and apartheid. We were accused of bringing politics into sport. Its an old refrain. It will be used against Buddy. By the way I refuse to use the term Australia Day because of the upset and emotional harm that phrase does to my indigenous friends and many in that community. Which was what Buddy's statement was all about. Heard this all before mate. As a club and supporters we are morally obligated to get around Buddy and get on the front foot. I will make a small bet with you if you like - the booing will increase against him this season - no doubt because he "stages for free kicks etc etc". The club cannot allow what happened to Adam be repeated here. You called Buddy's statement "disappointing". I cried when I read it. That's not an "opinion". Lets leave it there.
Click to expand...
Beautiful post.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Nothing to do with PC - I've lived here all my life and I find it a bit odd that we celebrate our national holiday on the day that we were colonised - not really the ideal date for us to celebrate our achievements as a nation IMO - but realistically Australia Day will stay on the 26th until we become a republic, and even that won't be happening any time soon given people can't even agree on that.

Would still like us to do more to recognise the plight of indigenous Australians, I think it would help old wounds to heal. It's not backing down to a minority at all, minorities still need to be respected.
 
bedford said:
75% of Aussies believe it's Australia Day , so we back down to a minority. This country is being destroyed by PC.
Click to expand...

Group of 4 people organising a party. 3 feel like doing it one weekend. 4th says “can we do it a different day? That’s the anniversary of my mum’s death, I don’t really feel like a party that day”. Other people say “sure, how about the weekend after instead” cos they’re sensible human beings.

Same principle applies. There’s a) nothing inherently patriotic about January 26th, and b) it’s a hurtful date to a bunch of people. Picking a better date should be a no-brainer and I still don’t get why so many people are so opposed.
 
BarneyBent said:
Group of 4 people organising a party. 3 feel like doing it one weekend. 4th says “can we do it a different day? That’s the anniversary of my mum’s death, I don’t really feel like a party that day”. Other people say “sure, how about the weekend after instead” cos they’re sensible human beings.

Same principle applies. There’s a) nothing inherently patriotic about January 26th, and b) it’s a hurtful date to a bunch of people. Picking a better date should be a no-brainer and I still don’t get why so many people are so opposed.
Click to expand...

Simple fix: keep January 26th as a public holiday, but rename it to "First Fleet Day", which is really what it is. Whether people find the date hurtful or not, it's still a part of our history. America still recognises Columbus Day as a holiday, people don't have to celebrate it if they don't want to.

Then agree on a timeline for working towards a proper treaty (which should have been done ages ago), with a commitment to recognising a "Treaty Day" as a new public holiday once this has been done. If NZ can do it, so can we.
 
Wolftone said:
It is not a myth. I studied Indigenous Studies and I can assure you it is not a myth. They were classified a Fauna under the Australian Flora & Fauna Act. The Aborigine Boards were all under the Department of Agriculture in every state. In Queensland there was a law at one stage that Aborigines had to be chained when in public. This was very much a case in North Queensland where Torres Strait and Thursday Islanders were used as slaves as well as the local Indigenous people.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

No they weren't classified fauna

Its a myth and it has been debunked numerous times
 
BarneyBent said:
Group of 4 people organising a party. 3 feel like doing it one weekend. 4th says “can we do it a different day? That’s the anniversary of my mum’s death, I don’t really feel like a party that day”. Other people say “sure, how about the weekend after instead” cos they’re sensible human beings.

Same principle applies. There’s a) nothing inherently patriotic about January 26th, and b) it’s a hurtful date to a bunch of people. Picking a better date should be a no-brainer and I still don’t get why so many people are so opposed.
Click to expand...


- People dont want to feel like they are being blamed for something that was out of their control/in the past\
- yes its only since 1994 or whatever but thats still a quarter of a century and it has established meaning for a lot of people who enjoy celebrating this great country
- there are a lot of days to acknowledge our indigenous past
- the people it directly affected are dead- not saying others arent
- you have a point above but also plenty of times the 4th person would sit the party out if a date cant be reached and its a bit different when it becomes 20 million people and say 4 million people dont like something- and if we changed this on those numbers whats next? Christmas moves because it offends?
- you wont ever make everyone happy
- people who complain still seem to enjoy that public holiday
- the holiday has become part of the calendar
- we are all one country why not focus on moving forward instead of past events


not saying i agree just saying there are feelings on the other side,
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hawk Dork said:
Prove it with a source
Click to expand...

He’s sort of right, in the sense that Aboriginal people were never formally categorised as fauna (I’m not sure who would even have the authority to make that call), but the “myth” is a bit more nuanced than that. Many states managed aboriginal affairs through the same departments that managed flora and fauna. They weren’t officially categorised as such, but they were in many respects treated as such by government.

By the same token, the 1967 referendum didn’t do anything to formally change this, but it did make changes that unambiguously and publically reaffirmed the indigenous population’s status as full citizens of Australia. Technically, there’s still nothing to stop governments from shifting the responsibility for the management of indigenous affairs to their department of environment. But to do so now would be seen as egregiously racist, and the 1967 referendum was a key milestone in getting to that point.
 
BarneyBent said:
He’s sort of right, in the sense that Aboriginal people were never formally categorised as fauna (I’m not sure who would even have the authority to make that call), but the “myth” is a bit more nuanced than that. Many states managed aboriginal affairs through the same departments that managed flora and fauna. They weren’t officially categorised as such, but they were in many respects treated as such by government.

By the same token, the 1967 referendum didn’t do anything to formally change this, but it did make changes that unambiguously and publically reaffirmed the indigenous population’s status as full citizens of Australia. Technically, there’s still nothing to stop governments from shifting the responsibility for the management of indigenous affairs to their department of environment. But to do so now would be seen as egregiously racist, and the 1967 referendum was a key milestone in getting to that point.
Click to expand...
He's not "sort of right", he's 100% correct. The claim is that there was some official Act of Parliament that classed Aboriginal people as "Fauna". This is false. There was no such act.

Going with the whole "It's the vibe though..." argument is just shifting the goalposts. We all agree aboriginal people weren't treated well, but that's not the same as saying the government of Australia formally institutionalized it in an Act of Parliament classifying some people as animals.
 
The 1994 it started is absolute crap . Always played cricket on the Monday , as it was the Monday of the Aussie day weekend , but then it changed to the actual date , but if falls on a weekend we use the Monday.
Then you have absolute campaigners like Yumi Stynes , what Kerrie Anne said was right , but the turds like Stynes just want to be heard to big note themselves. Im Australian and proud of it and I celebrate the 26th because of it . I absolutely love the aboriginal people and Goodsey is one of the best humans ive ever met , but no left wing tosser is going to tell me what or when I can celebrate !
 
replicant said:
He's not "sort of right", he's 100% correct. The claim is that there was some official Act of Parliament that classed Aboriginal people as "Fauna". This is false. There was no such act.

Going with the whole "It's the vibe though..." argument is just shifting the goalposts. We all agree aboriginal people weren't treated well, but that's not the same as saying the government of Australia formally institutionalized it in an Act of Parliament classifying some people as animals.
Click to expand...
Like you, I am a stickler for historical fact where it can be proven, but in this case, when they weren't classified as adult citizens in their own land till 1967, it's a pretty academic distinction, isn't it?
 
The King! said:
i have to say I enjoy Australia Day in the summer putting all arguments/hurt/opinion aside.

It has become a nice relaxing day, I have no ancestry affected by the day admittedly
Click to expand...
Me too, so why we can't just hold it on Jan 1st, which is clearly the most appropriate date, is beyond me.

I think it's time to drop this juvenile Oh-but-we-Aussies-just-HAVE-to-have-our-public-holidays-and-Jan-1st-is-already-a-public-holiday-so-it's-not-fair-that-we-miss-out palaver.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
Like you, I am a stickler for historical fact where it can be proven, but in this case, when they weren't classified as adult citizens in their own land till 1967, it's a pretty academic distinction, isn't it?
Click to expand...
The point is whether they were classified as fauna.
That statement is incorrect
 
CheapCharlie said:
The point is whether they were classified as fauna.
That statement is incorrect
Click to expand...
If ABC Fact Check is right, I agree, like I said.

Perhaps we should agree on a resolution and move on:

Aboriginal people were treated as subhumans, but it is a proven myth that they were ever officially classified as Fauna.
 
The 67 Referendum marked a positive turning point for the nation. I have strong recollections of the mood and the efforts of many folk inc my dad and his lefty Branch of the RSL being involved. Of course the rival Ruxton Branch were opposed. Robert Ryan was hung around that time. Both events helped form my interest in justice.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
If ABC Fact Check is right, I agree, like I said.

Perhaps we should agree on a resolution and move on:

Aboriginal people were treated as subhumans, but it is a proven myth that they were ever officially classified as Fauna.
Click to expand...

Aboriginal people were mistreated, in many cases they were thought as inferior and less than human.
Yes we can agree on that

The issue I have with the 'Aboriginal people were classified as fauna', is that you have people speaking that as an irrefutable fact, when it was not the case.
One poster on here said they learnt it in Aboriginal Studies at Uni...therefore if they were told it was true it must certainly be true.
If they learnt that I'd be questioning the entire course content they were given.

Aboriginal people suffered horribly as it is, why does the suffering need to be enhanced with falsities?
 
replicant said:
He's not "sort of right", he's 100% correct. The claim is that there was some official Act of Parliament that classed Aboriginal people as "Fauna". This is false. There was no such act.

Going with the whole "It's the vibe though..." argument is just shifting the goalposts. We all agree aboriginal people weren't treated well, but that's not the same as saying the government of Australia formally institutionalized it in an Act of Parliament classifying some people as animals.
Click to expand...

That is misleading because it assumes that the only way that indigenous folk could be, or were, classed as fauna is via a section of law that explicitly stated so.

The indigenous people were considered fauna because they weren't considered persons.


The act which gave authority to the census explicitly stated that ALL PERSONS were to be counted.
Indigenous people weren't counted because they weren't considered to be "persons".
If they're not persons they had to be something else, that something else is linked to the some of the justifications for declaring a land terra nullius, as put forward by the architect of the law which came to be known as 'terra nullius', William Blackstone. Some of those justifications included that the people inhabiting a land were so backward so as not to be persons and should be considered to be part of the land. i.e. fauna.

There is also further evidence to support the notion that indigenous people were considered fauna in the form of court cases from the 1820's where indigenous folk were not permitted to make their case for their right to land because they had no standing to do so. They had not standing because there were not subject to British law, like everyone else. They were not considered to be subjects of the British Empire, in order to be a subject of the British Empire you had to be a person.
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
Like you, I am a stickler for historical fact where it can be proven, but in this case, when they weren't classified as adult citizens in their own land till 1967, it's a pretty academic distinction, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes they were, you are mistaken about what the 1967 referendum said. The 1967 referendum counted them in the census for the first time, and transferred authority for aboriginal affairs from state to federal government.

But they had citizenship since Cook landed and claimed the land in 1770, before the first fleet even arrived. They could even vote (except in Qld and WA), for example both aboriginal and white men got the vote in SA in 1854, and women in 1896. I agree these are technicalities with regard to the centuries of abuse and mistreatment, but i think it is an important distinction to draw.
 
Moved to the Bar as this discussion has gone well outside it's relevance to the Swans to a much greater political debate. Feel free to continue the discussion, and remember to play the ball and not the man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top