15 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Fantastic from Daisy. Has 

I do find it pretty hilarious the usual suspects are somehow combining 'We need to move on from history' with 'We should celebrate history' while maintaining a straight face...

Or the usual suspects who take every opportunity to show they are morally superior & smarter than everyone else.

3 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

I’m disappointed in this , I thought you would understand the significance of the monarchy in our colonial history ..and the genocide of our indiginous. 

 

You will get into trouble with some groups who claim copyright on the word genocide 

2 hours ago, praha said:

So there can never been reconciliation? Even with Australia? Australia as a country as a genocidal history. Suggesting there can't be recognition of the most progressive thinking Queen ever, and someone who actually recognised contributions to improving the lives of Indigenous, suggests this movement has no interest in actual reconciliation. It's on a pathway to nowhere.

Not sure I agree there hasn't been enough recognition, although maybe you wanted more than 24/7 media saturation, countless ceremonial moments and a public holiday...

In case anyone would like to read some additional context regarding why paying respects to Queen Elizabeth II is a complex conversation, please see the attachments.

 

At the Melb v Bris game I was actually quite shocked at the way it was handled, moving straight from the Welcome to Country to the minutes silence without any context or meaningful segue. At the time I found it quite confronting and confusing.

I do understand that the Queen was the political Monarch of the Australian state and therefore is acknowledged at such events. Whether or not that is a good thing, and whether or not we need to continue to advance the relationship between the first nations people and the current Australian state is irrelevant of the fact the ceremony lacked cultural tact.

I do think that something needed to be said to link or distance the two cultural moments, to avoid the very uncomfortable and tone deaf situation that occured.

The rendition of an old tape recording of God Save the Queen, complete with lights turning on and off at the wrong moment demonstrated how poorly thought out the situation was.

Edited September 17, 20222 yr by deanox
Just noting the screenshot is not my words, it's taken from social media.

15 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Let's just all agree that it is remarkable that Daisy expressed a considered and thoughtful opinion on the matter. Puts her in a very small bracket!

The monarchy is an ethnic symbol par excellence. Elizabeth II was the Notre Dame (see what I did there?) of Britishness, the Parthenon of Englishness.

I can accept that it is a sensitive moment for anyone whose identity is wrapped up in what is a pretty incredible and complex ethnic history and legacy. Exploitation and resistance, empire and liberation, privilege and working class pride, stuffy conservatism and unprecedented social diversity all in a single tradition. Some of the 'hot-takes' denigrating Britishness via the Queen have been plain idiotic and, frankly, racist.

BUT

I think it is a fairly straightforward thing to understand that for most indigenous Australian's, there's no real way to spin the idea that during 'Indigenous round' you can insert a ritual of devotion and deference to someone who, symbolically, we must all swear loyalty to for no reason other than her supposedly superior bloodline.

And it's not as if there is a shortage of such ritual obeisance going on.

Hmmm, significant German heritage.  Battenberg (Prince Phillips heritage) before the name was anglicsed it to Mountbatten during WW1.

The Windsors were named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the Queens' grandfather traded it for the English name during WW1. 

History aside, it was good for Daisy to stand up for her teammates.  Had it not been Indigenous Round for the AFLW a question wouldn't have been raised as it wasn't for the AFL games.

Edited September 17, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

When you see a headline that looks like it could be really hard to defend or explain, you pay attention to how the person acts.

I can't believe how well Daisy articulated this response in the space of 3 minutes. This is beyond football and I feel Daisy has a future beyond being a footballer/coach/commentator.

10 minutes ago, layzie said:

This is beyond football and I feel Daisy has a future beyond being a footballer/coach/commentator.

It says a lot about the standard of football commentary when someone appears too intelligent to do it.

We'll thought out and very articulate. We'll done Daisy.

The pasting she's copping on social media is disgraceful.

Bit more of a thinker than BT, Rex and Carey

22 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I think she's beyond caring dworship !

My point exactly!

Daisy is a true leader, what a champion she is.

All the nuffies getting offended by her comments is hilarious to see.

Edited September 17, 20222 yr by Clint Bizkit

I wonder what people really think and what they would actually say if they were allowed to. 

Edited September 17, 20222 yr by Ethan Tremblay

9 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Hmmm, significant German heritage.  Battenberg (Prince Phillips heritage) before the name was anglicsed it to Mountbatten during WW1.

The Windsors were named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the Queens' grandfather traded it for the English name during WW1. 

History aside, it was good for Daisy to stand up for her teammates.  Had it not been Indigenous Round for the AFLW a question wouldn't have been raised as it wasn't for the AFL games.

There's nothing more Anglo-Saxon than actually being from north Germany. 🤪

8 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

There's nothing more Anglo-Saxon than actually being from north Germany. 🤪

Touche!

Jake Niall's take on the situation.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-moment-s-hesitation-daisy-pearce-exposes-the-afl-s-confusion-20220917-p5bivw.html

14 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I wonder what people really think and what they would actually say if they were allowed to. 

The question to me is how to show respect for the passing of a leading world figure.

I thought the one minute silence at our game was quite appropriate and respectful for her as a person and the incredible life she led and as a world leader.  The turning out the lights gave added poignancy and respect.  It is something I would hope for when any great world leader passed.   Crikey we do it for sports people!

I don't think we should have played 'God Save The Queen'.  It hasn't been our national anthem for about 30 years.  Very few Australians of any colour or creed identify with it nor recognise it as relevant to us.  The one minute silence in the dark was sufficient and I would like to think relatively neutral, politically.

Edited September 18, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

11 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I wonder what people really think and what they would actually say if they were allowed to. 

That's an odd comment, Ethan.  Nobody is being censored are they?

As evidenced by this thread, people with varying opinions have stated their views.

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Jake Niall's take on the situation.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-moment-s-hesitation-daisy-pearce-exposes-the-afl-s-confusion-20220917-p5bivw.html

Good article.

The AFL "chooses not to offend anyone, but can end by pleasing no one."

Like some, I didn't mind the minute silence, despite being a republican. I can put up with that. However, the playing of God Save the Queen was unnecessary and tone deaf to what was appropriate 

I like Daisy, but l’m disappointed she chose to become a political spokesperson.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

I like Daisy, but l’m disappointed she chose to become a political spokesperson.

 

 

Aquiescing in something that offends your mates else is just as political.

14 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

I like Daisy, but l’m disappointed she chose to become a political spokesperson.

 

 

So she should shut up and not talk about anything else but football when asked, despite this being about her teamates??? Its more than politics

By her standing in AFLW she is a spokesperson for her teamates

4 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The question to me is how to show respect for the passing of a leading world figure.

I thought the one minute silence at our game was quite appropriate and respectful for her as a person and the incredible life she led and as a world leader.  The turning out the lights gave added poignancy and respect.  It is something I would hope for when any great world leader passed.   Crikey we do it for sports people!

I don't think we should have played 'God Save The Queen'.  Very few Australians of any colour or creed identify with it nor recognise it as relevant to us.  The one minute silence in the dark was sufficient and I would like to think relatively neutral, politically.

Summed (most) my thoughts up nicely.

Love, hate or be indifferent to the monarchy (I don't love them), if it's good enough to have every cause have a "round", it's good enough to be respectful to the Monarch on their passing.

38 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

So she should shut up and not talk about anything else but football when asked, despite this being about her teamates??? Its more than politics

By her standing in AFLW she is a spokesperson for her teamates

Not really into virtue signalling.

The Queen wasn’t born when the colonisation took place.

l thought the Queen was decent individual who pretty much dedicated her life to service and her role. 

But l understand your point of view.

 

The Left despise Andrew Bolt, so many on here need to check their blood pressure because I just mentioned his name. 🤣

I won't quote too much of his article in today's HS, but here's a snippet re Pearce.

 

Where did Pearce learn such a string of falsehoods and exaggerations? In school? And how many other young Australians have been coached into such hatred of our past and institutions?

In fact, there was no “genocide”, and while land was “stolen”, Aborigines today have some form of control over 49.3 per cent of Australia.

Nor has the Aboriginal culture and way of life been “erased” so much as adapted or abandoned.

Western civilisation is more attractive and makes for an easier life than foraging for yams and grass seeds. It’s also given Aboriginal women more rights than male-dominated tribes ever did.

As for the “stolen generations”, the courts are yet to find a single person “stolen” from their family just because they were Aboriginal, and not abandoned or in perceived danger.

 

Cue the melts, but if you disagree, try using facts over emotion.

And try not to argue with me.  I take no credit for Bolt's arguments.  I share because some may be interested.

Edited September 18, 20222 yr by Hannibal Inc.

16 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

The Left despise Andrew Bolt, so many on here need to check their blood pressure because I just mentioned his name. 🤣

I won't quote too much of his article in today's HS, but here's a snippet re Pearce.

 

Where did Pearce learn such a string of falsehoods and exaggerations? In school? And how many other young Australians have been coached into such hatred of our past and institutions?

In fact, there was no “genocide”, and while land was “stolen”, Aborigines today have some form of control over 49.3 per cent of Australia.

Nor has the Aboriginal culture and way of life been “erased” so much as adapted or abandoned.

Western civilisation is more attractive and makes for an easier life than foraging for yams and grass seeds. It’s also given Aboriginal women more rights than male-dominated tribes ever did.

As for the “stolen generations”, the courts are yet to find a single person “stolen” from their family just because they were Aboriginal, and not abandoned or in perceived danger.

 

Cue the melts, but if you disagree, try using facts over emotion.

And try not to argue with me.  I take no credit for Bolt's arguments.  I share because some may be interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt

I am getting so sick of being told what I have to believe, support or endorse. Totally jack of it to be honest.

I have to respect the Queen or I am (insert scathing judgement here)

I have to support Indigenous rights or I am ...

I have to wear rainbow shoe laces on LGBTQI awareness day or I am ...

I have to wear pink on breast cancer awareness day or I am ...

I have to respect this or that flag or I am ...

If I welcome refugees I am a soft ... but if I reject them I am a hard-hearted ...

I have a history, conscience and mind of my own and I will decide what I choose to accept, reject or even be neutral about. And hopefully, in this age of tolerance, I can sit down and have a wine or beer with someone who passionately disagrees with me.

I am glad Daisy spoke her mind and I hope she respects the person who disagrees with her. If Prince Charles has been a passionate greeny for 50 years I hope he doesn't become silent just because he is supposed to be in some 'non-political' role.

We spent 4 generations in this country being told not to talk about sex, death, religion or politics. Now we have an entire culture of people who can't or won't talk about important things.

Rant over.

Edited September 18, 20222 yr by Maldonboy38