New Active Support Group Discussion

[SF33]

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

[KD.]

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

[SF33]

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

 

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't.

 

Aldi was today criticised by a number of Twitter users for a range of promotional T-shirts with "AUSTRALIA EST 1788" logos.

The T-shirts and singlets were scheduled to go on sale on this week in the lead up to January 26.

 

Twitter users slammed the design as racist and culturally insensitive to indigenous Australians, who inhabited the continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

 

"@ALDIAustralia are selling Australia Day tshirts emblazoned with 'established 1788'. Beggars belief," one Twitter user posted.

 

The online furore forced Aldi to apologise on Twitter for "any offence taken" before the company announced it had "decided to remove one of its Australia Day special buy products, the Adults Australia Day T-shirt and Singlet from retail".

 

Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

[KD.]

 

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

 

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't.

 

 

Aldi was today criticised by a number of Twitter users for a range of promotional T-shirts with "AUSTRALIA EST 1788" logos.

The T-shirts and singlets were scheduled to go on sale on this week in the lead up to January 26.

 

Twitter users slammed the design as racist and culturally insensitive to indigenous Australians, who inhabited the continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

 

"@ALDIAustralia are selling Australia Day tshirts emblazoned with 'established 1788'. Beggars belief," one Twitter user posted.

 

The online furore forced Aldi to apologise on Twitter for "any offence taken" before the company announced it had "decided to remove one of its Australia Day special buy products, the Adults Australia Day T-shirt and Singlet from retail".

 

Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

 

i think its a complete non issue tbh. 

[malloy]

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't.

Aldi was today criticised by a number of Twitter users for a range of promotional T-shirts with "AUSTRALIA EST 1788" logos.

The T-shirts and singlets were scheduled to go on sale on this week in the lead up to January 26.

Twitter users slammed the design as racist and culturally insensitive to indigenous Australians, who inhabited the continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

"@ALDIAustralia are selling Australia Day tshirts emblazoned with 'established 1788'. Beggars belief," one Twitter user posted.

The online furore forced Aldi to apologise on Twitter for "any offence taken" before the company announced it had "decided to remove one of its Australia Day special buy products, the Adults Australia Day T-shirt and Singlet from retail".

Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

Two totally different things.

[SF33]

 

 

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't.

Aldi was today criticised by a number of Twitter users for a range of promotional T-shirts with "AUSTRALIA EST 1788" logos.

The T-shirts and singlets were scheduled to go on sale on this week in the lead up to January 26.

Twitter users slammed the design as racist and culturally insensitive to indigenous Australians, who inhabited the continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

"@ALDIAustralia are selling Australia Day tshirts emblazoned with 'established 1788'. Beggars belief," one Twitter user posted.

The online furore forced Aldi to apologise on Twitter for "any offence taken" before the company announced it had "decided to remove one of its Australia Day special buy products, the Adults Australia Day T-shirt and Singlet from retail".

Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

Two totally different things.

 

 

I understand it isn't exactly the same thing (same principle, as far as I'm concerned), but stuff like this matters. A simple query to the club and at least taking the time to ask shouldn't be too much trouble.

[thisphantomfortress]

 

 

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

 

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't.

 

 

Aldi was today criticised by a number of Twitter users for a range of promotional T-shirts with "AUSTRALIA EST 1788" logos.

The T-shirts and singlets were scheduled to go on sale on this week in the lead up to January 26.

 

Twitter users slammed the design as racist and culturally insensitive to indigenous Australians, who inhabited the continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

 

"@ALDIAustralia are selling Australia Day tshirts emblazoned with 'established 1788'. Beggars belief," one Twitter user posted.

 

The online furore forced Aldi to apologise on Twitter for "any offence taken" before the company announced it had "decided to remove one of its Australia Day special buy products, the Adults Australia Day T-shirt and Singlet from retail".

 

Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

 

i think its a complete non issue tbh. 

 

Nobody in this situation is discrediting 10,000 years of cultural history like Aldi did. Melbourne became a city in 1847, part of what was mentioned in the meeting at the imp was being an inclusive terrace. Being resisdents of the city is something that unites us all and so its something that people are celebrating by suggesting 1847 in the name. It really shouldnt be an issue unless we're getting hyper-sensative

[Nate]

If there's one thing to be certain... there won't be a unanimous agreement on the name. 

Yarraside was too perfect.

[SF33]

 

 

 

Melbourne was made a city in 1847.

 

That's fine. All I'm saying is maybe check with a few people in the Indigenous community (particularly those with connections to the club) before locking it in. Speak to people from the club, ask them for their thoughts. The potential for controversy is, as far as I'm concerned, very, very high. And opposition supporters (particularly those from the other club) would be desperate to seize on it. I reckon you're kidding yourself, if you think they wouldn't.

 

 

Aldi was today criticised by a number of Twitter users for a range of promotional T-shirts with "AUSTRALIA EST 1788" logos.

The T-shirts and singlets were scheduled to go on sale on this week in the lead up to January 26.

 

Twitter users slammed the design as racist and culturally insensitive to indigenous Australians, who inhabited the continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

 

"@ALDIAustralia are selling Australia Day tshirts emblazoned with 'established 1788'. Beggars belief," one Twitter user posted.

 

The online furore forced Aldi to apologise on Twitter for "any offence taken" before the company announced it had "decided to remove one of its Australia Day special buy products, the Adults Australia Day T-shirt and Singlet from retail".

 

Is it really worth it? Just asking the question...

 

i think its a complete non issue tbh. 

 

Nobody in this situation is discrediting 10,000 years of cultural history like Aldi did. Melbourne became a city in 1847, part of what was mentioned in the meeting at the imp was being an inclusive terrace. Being resisdents of the city is something that unites us all and so its something that people are celebrating by suggesting 1847 in the name. It really shouldnt be an issue unless we're getting hyper-sensative

 

 

Some people are hypersensitive. That's all I'm saying.

 

Would an Australian active supporters area (in whatever sport) ever consider using '1788' in its name? I seriously doubt it.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm just asking you to consider it.

[Pete Heartspur]

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

 

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

 

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Pete Heartspur

[Dylan]

If there's one thing to be certain... there won't be a unanimous agreement on the name. 

Yarraside was too perfect.

 

 

Yarraside at the start might not have been unanimous either at the start? but I would have no idea.

 

Anywhom seems like its going to be The Melburnians which is fine by me. 

[SF33]

 

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

 

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

 

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

 

 

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

 

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

[Braveheart]

If there's one thing to be certain... there won't be a unanimous agreement on the name. 

Yarraside was too perfect.

There were many who hated it and argued vehemently against it when it was adopted four or so years ago now. 

[Dylan]

 

 

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

 

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

 

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

 

 

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

 

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

 

 

 

1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different

[Pete Heartspur]

 

 

 

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

 

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

 

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

 

 

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

 

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

 

 

 

1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different

 

Might be a good idea regardless. If we want to be a club that engages with the community, this could be part of our contribution. Even if we don't think it matters or would be an issue, at the very least it shows respect.

[kingofhearts]

Don't use an aboriginal name, we'll look like the biggest hipster faggots in the league. Theirs been so many good names mentioned on here already, just pick one of those. People are just over thinking this. the name is not even that important, just call us 'heart cheer squad' and lets focus on more important things.

[SF33]

 

 

 

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

 

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

 

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

 

 

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

 

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

 

 

 

1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different

 

 

By the comparison that you're drawing, I'd say it's not completely different, since the furore was all about merchandise with 'established 1788' plastered all over it. From your explanation, it's actually the same thing.

 

I'll wear that the nature of Australia Day, compared to the proposed use for a football club is quite different, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle. And of course, I'm happy to have a discussion/debate about it, but it's really the sort of thing that could be much better and more easily resolved by simply asking a few questions to the relevant people and getting a 'no worries' from them. Do the Wurundjeri people, for example, recognise that 1847 date, or do they treat it as an insult? I honestly don't know. Couldn't hurt to ask them, right?

[cadete]

 

 

 

 

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

 

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

 

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

 

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

 

 

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

 

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

 

 

 

1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different

 

 

By the comparison that you're drawing, I'd say it's not completely different, since the furore was all about merchandise with 'established 1788' plastered all over it. From your explanation, it's actually the same thing.

 

I'll wear that the nature of Australia Day, compared to the proposed use for a football club is quite different, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle. And of course, I'm happy to have a discussion/debate about it, but it's really the sort of thing that could be much better and more easily resolved by simply asking a few questions to the relevant people and getting a 'no worries' from them. Do the Wurundjeri people, for example, recognise that 1847 date, or do they treat it as an insult? I honestly don't know. Couldn't hurt to ask them, right?

 

Look the Wurunderji people were nomadic and moved all around Port Philip Bay throughout the years prior to Europeans arriving in Victoria.

 

They didn't establish anything reminiscent of a permanent Settlement/Village/Town/City in the Melbourne Area so I cant see them being offended.

 

Your point is not relevant because we are talking about a City and not a Country.

Edited June 29, 2014 by cadete

[Heart is Melbourne]

It seems this is a big issue for you mate, something you could perhaps take on and report back to the new group on?

[Pete Heartspur]

Don't use an aboriginal name, we'll look like the biggest hipster faggots in the league. Theirs been so many good names mentioned on here already, just pick one of those. People are just over thinking this. the name is not even that important, just call us 'heart cheer squad' and lets focus on more important things.

Yeah, maybe got a bit carried away with the name bit.

[SF33]

It seems this is a big issue for you mate, something you could perhaps take on and report back to the new group on?

 

I think the people who want to use '1847' in the name should probably be charged with that responsibility. I'll leave it in their capable hands.

[kingofhearts]

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different

By the comparison that you're drawing, I'd say it's not completely different, since the furore was all about merchandise with 'established 1788' plastered all over it. From your explanation, it's actually the same thing.

I'll wear that the nature of Australia Day, compared to the proposed use for a football club is quite different, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle. And of course, I'm happy to have a discussion/debate about it, but it's really the sort of thing that could be much better and more easily resolved by simply asking a few questions to the relevant people and getting a 'no worries' from them. Do the Wurundjeri people, for example, recognise that 1847 date, or do they treat it as an insult? I honestly don't know. Couldn't hurt to ask them, right?

who cares what they think? We're just naming an active area, we're not trying to re-name uluru. Just don't use an aboriginal name and problem solved.

[Heart is Melbourne]

I dont think anyone else seems to think it is an issue mate.

[SF33]

I dont think anyone else seems to think it is an issue mate.

 

Can I put it to you that I wouldn't have expected members of a Melbourne Heart/City message board to be the target group that might have an issue with it? Hence, you know, asking the question?

[SF33]

 

 

 

 

 

Just with all the '1847' stuff, I think it's worth considering a bit of potential controversy, along the lines of the 'Australia - established 1788' merchandise that some retailers had to recall and issue public apologies for.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/apologetic-aldi-withdraws-racist-australia-day-shirts-from-stores/story-e6frg6nf-1226797444037?nk=080d3822b1de8cfcdb63761547f9e129

I hate to be a spoil sport, but if you end up choosing to go with it, I think it would at least be worth sounding out some Indigenous contacts that have been involved with the club (perhaps through the club, if possible?) to get their feedback on how it would be viewed. Probably worth doing a bit of due diligence, to avoid a potential shitstorm and (more importantly) upsetting a pretty vital section of our community.

Think the situation is a little different and wouldn't be an issue. "Australia Est 1788" basically suggests that nothing occurred or existed previous to this date. That the history of the indigenous population had no significance or relevance to the country. Demon_Heart is correct in that "Melbourne 1847, M47 etc." is factually based and isn't inflammatory as the city this was when the city was founded.

Having said that, you may be onto something in engaging with the indigenous section of society. I, for one, would love to see us create a connection with them. I know "Yarra" is an aboriginal word, but maybe this could be an angle we could go for in terms of a new name. Not only could our active supporter group be a voice for our team, it could be a voice of support for our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

I'm just spitballing though, might be a bit too political. Or something to think about at a later date.

I couldn't agree more...that's all I'm saying.

I don't want to be the bad guy. It's as much a comment that the new active group will have a lot of strength, a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. You represent all of us, whether we are active supporters or not. Whether you agree with me or not (that's really irrelevant), you must be able to look at your decisions from these sort of angles and understand the possible consequences before implementing them.

1847 is when the city of Melbourne was established, called a name, made into a 'city' and what have you. Euro settlements started around 1835 in the area and the 5 tribes of the Kulin were here a long time before that. So the 1847 is the same situation as the date of federation and not like the 1788 reference you cited. So as Malloy said, its completly different

By the comparison that you're drawing, I'd say it's not completely different, since the furore was all about merchandise with 'established 1788' plastered all over it. From your explanation, it's actually the same thing.

I'll wear that the nature of Australia Day, compared to the proposed use for a football club is quite different, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle. And of course, I'm happy to have a discussion/debate about it, but it's really the sort of thing that could be much better and more easily resolved by simply asking a few questions to the relevant people and getting a 'no worries' from them. Do the Wurundjeri people, for example, recognise that 1847 date, or do they treat it as an insult? I honestly don't know. Couldn't hurt to ask them, right?

who cares what they think? We're just naming an active area, we're not trying to re-name uluru. Just don't use an aboriginal name and problem solved.

 

 

Probably the club, at a guess.

[Heart is Melbourne]

I dont think anyone else seems to think it is an issue mate.

Can I put it to you that I wouldn't have expected members of a Melbourne Heart/City message board to be the target group that might have an issue with it? Hence, you know, asking the question? Sure you asked and as far as I can tell you have already done so.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Heart is Melbourne

[jw1739]

The club has an established link with the Wurundjeri. Each season a representative of the people, I believe an Elder (I forget her name I'm afraid) performs a small ceremony at AAMI Park that gives their approval to the use of what was once their tribal land. It may only be symbolic, but it is something that the club does. It would be a simple matter to contact Scott Munn and ask the question.

[M13]

Trying not to look all wannabe Casuals, Supras or Ultras we are approaching Tribal now?

[SF33]

 

 

I dont think anyone else seems to think it is an issue mate.

Can I put it to you that I wouldn't have expected members of a Melbourne Heart/City message board to be the target group that might have an issue with it? Hence, you know, asking the question? Sure you asked and as far as I can tell you have already done so.

 

 

Asking the people that might have an issue with it? I can assure you that I haven't.

[Heart is Melbourne]

I apologize for my rant and thank you for your suggestion.

May I suggest if you feel strongly on this issue that as someone suggested you speak to Scott Munn and get actively involved (if you're not already).

Cheers

[Tesla]

Even if you ignore the fact that what SF33 is saying is completely wrong, if you're going to worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club then you're going to struggle to get anything done as something will always offend someone.

[SF33]

Even if you ignore the fact that what SF33 is saying is completely wrong, if you're going to worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club then you're going to struggle to get anything done as something will always offend someone.

 

1. How is what I'm saying 'completely wrong'? Enlighten me. I've asked a question and it seems like it's pissed an inordinate number of people off, for some baffling reason.

 

2. If 'something will always offend someone' as you suggest, maybe you could take the other popular suggestions for the active supporter group's name and come up with a way that each of them could possibly be construed as offensive (or, as I've suggested with the '1847' thing, that may require a bit of clarification). You know, if what you're saying isn't just empty rhetoric.

 

3. '...worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club...' you can't be serious. Are you suggesting that it's fine to use terms that could (note: 'could', not 'definitely will', as I never said that) be culturally insensitive, as long as we don't have a large number of that specific group among the club's supporters? Whether people from that group are supporters of the club or not is completely irrelevant.

 

4. If some people spent a little less time getting outraged at a pretty simple and harmless suggestion and instead directed that time towards perhaps making a call to the club, or sending them an email, that might be all it would take to resolve the issue. And that is how a professional unit would handle it.

[HEARTinator]

Well politics and history, can't escape it.

There's a suggestion on another thread for the name 'Batman Hill' as the new active supporter group. But Batman may well be a controversial historical figure:

http://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-john-batman-melbournes-founder-and-murderer-of-the-blacks-1025

Just putting it out there for chewing on.

[cadete]

 

Even if you ignore the fact that what SF33 is saying is completely wrong, if you're going to worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club then you're going to struggle to get anything done as something will always offend someone.

 

1. How is what I'm saying 'completely wrong'? Enlighten me. I've asked a question and it seems like it's pissed an inordinate number of people off, for some baffling reason.

 

2. If 'something will always offend someone' as you suggest, maybe you could take the other popular suggestions for the active supporter group's name and come up with a way that each of them could possibly be construed as offensive (or, as I've suggested with the '1847' thing, that may require a bit of clarification). You know, if what you're saying isn't just empty rhetoric.

 

3. '...worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club...' you can't be serious. Are you suggesting that it's fine to use terms that could (note: 'could', not 'definitely will', as I never said that) be culturally insensitive, as long as we don't have a large number of that specific group among the club's supporters? Whether people from that group are supporters of the club or not is completely irrelevant.

 

4. If some people spent a little less time getting outraged at a pretty simple and harmless suggestion and instead directed that time towards perhaps making a call to the club, or sending them an email, that might be all it would take to resolve the issue. And that is how a professional unit would handle it.

 

1. Did you even read my post about how the Aboriginal people from the Port Philip Bay area were nomadic and thus probably not offended about a date that refers to a permanent settlement being offically called a City?

 

2. Also do you even realise the date people are talking about is the year Melbourne offically became a City not the date White People settled in the Melbourne area? An equivlent in Australian terms would be the date of Federation (That I have never heard any Aboriginal group complain about) and not the controversial date of 1788.

 

What I really mean is if you care so much about being politically correct with history - It would probably help if you knew your history.

Edited June 29, 2014 by cadete

[SF33]

 

 

Even if you ignore the fact that what SF33 is saying is completely wrong, if you're going to worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club then you're going to struggle to get anything done as something will always offend someone.

 

1. How is what I'm saying 'completely wrong'? Enlighten me. I've asked a question and it seems like it's pissed an inordinate number of people off, for some baffling reason.

 

2. If 'something will always offend someone' as you suggest, maybe you could take the other popular suggestions for the active supporter group's name and come up with a way that each of them could possibly be construed as offensive (or, as I've suggested with the '1847' thing, that may require a bit of clarification). You know, if what you're saying isn't just empty rhetoric.

 

3. '...worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club...' you can't be serious. Are you suggesting that it's fine to use terms that could (note: 'could', not 'definitely will', as I never said that) be culturally insensitive, as long as we don't have a large number of that specific group among the club's supporters? Whether people from that group are supporters of the club or not is completely irrelevant.

 

4. If some people spent a little less time getting outraged at a pretty simple and harmless suggestion and instead directed that time towards perhaps making a call to the club, or sending them an email, that might be all it would take to resolve the issue. And that is how a professional unit would handle it.

 

1. Did you even read my post about how the Aboriginal people from the Port Philip Bay area were nomadic and thus probably not offended about a date that refers to a permanent settlement being offically called a City?

 

2. Also do you even realise the date people are talking about is the year Melbourne offically became a City not the date White People settled in the Melbourne area? An equivlent in Australian terms would be the date of Federation (That I have never heard any Aboriginal group complain about) and not the controversial date of 1788.

 

What I really mean is if you care so much about being politically correct with history - It would probably help if you knew your history.

 

 

1. Yes, I did. '...probably not offended'...I think that sums it all up. Why bother taking a few minutes to ask the question, right?

 

2. Really??!

 

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/changing-face-of-early-australia

 

Federation of the six colonies in 1901 reinforced the British claim over the continent and specifically excluded Aborigines from the census and the law-making powers of the parliament. This effectively disenfranchised or removed Aborigines civil rights, despite their overwhelming contribution to the early survival of the colonies and the colonists' knowledge of the bush, tracking and policing, local architecture, domestic family structure, supply of all fibre products – bags, baskets and hats, rural industries, especially sheep and cattle farming, droving, skinning, tanning, hops and brewing, as well as sporting achievements.

 

Possibly worth sending an email, or making a phone call? Nah, she'll be right...

[Boffins]

Even if you ignore the fact that what SF33 is saying is completely wrong, if you're going to worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club then you're going to struggle to get anything done as something will always offend someone.

1. How is what I'm saying 'completely wrong'? Enlighten me. I've asked a question and it seems like it's pissed an inordinate number of people off, for some baffling reason.

2. If 'something will always offend someone' as you suggest, maybe you could take the other popular suggestions for the active supporter group's name and come up with a way that each of them could possibly be construed as offensive (or, as I've suggested with the '1847' thing, that may require a bit of clarification). You know, if what you're saying isn't just empty rhetoric.

3. '...worry about offending the 3 indigenous people that support the club...' you can't be serious. Are you suggesting that it's fine to use terms that could (note: 'could', not 'definitely will', as I never said that) be culturally insensitive, as long as we don't have a large number of that specific group among the club's supporters? Whether people from that group are supporters of the club or not is completely irrelevant.

4. If some people spent a little less time getting outraged at a pretty simple and harmless suggestion and instead directed that time towards perhaps making a call to the club, or sending them an email, that might be all it would take to resolve the issue. And that is how a professional unit would handle it.

1. Did you even read my post about how the Aboriginal people from the Port Philip Bay area were nomadic and thus probably not offended about a date that refers to a permanent settlement being offically called a City?

2. Also do you even realise the date people are talking about is the year Melbourne offically became a City not the date White People settled in the Melbourne area? An equivlent in Australian terms would be the date of Federation (That I have never heard any Aboriginal group complain about) and not the controversial date of 1788.

What I really mean is if you care so much about being politically correct with history - It would probably help if you knew your history.

1. Yes, I did. '...probably not offended'...I think that sums it all up. Why bother taking a few minutes to ask the question, right?

2. Really??!

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/changing-face-of-early-australia

Federation of the six colonies in 1901 reinforced the British claim over the continent and specifically excluded Aborigines from the census and the law-making powers of the parliament. This effectively disenfranchised or removed Aborigines civil rights, despite their overwhelming contribution to the early survival of the colonies and the colonists' knowledge of the bush, tracking and policing, local architecture, domestic family structure, supply of all fibre products – bags, baskets and hats, rural industries, especially sheep and cattle farming, droving, skinning, tanning, hops and brewing, as well as sporting achievements.

Possibly worth sending an email, or making a phone call? Nah, she'll be right... It's a football terrace not a political party mate, I can highly doubt any of the aboriginal people of the area will give a fuck about a supporters group from the local football league. Way to much political correctness in this new terrace already.

[Red or Dead]

Well politics and history, can't escape it.

There's a suggestion on another thread for the name 'Batman Hill' as the new active supporter group. But Batman may well be a controversial historical figure:

http://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-john-batman-melbournes-founder-and-murderer-of-the-blacks-1025

Just putting it out there for chewing on.

According to Wikipedia, John Batman actually negotiated with the indigenous people of the area and bought the land off them fair and square...and in Wikipedia we trust! Lol

[In May and June 1835, the area which is now central and northern Melbourne was explored by John Batman, a leading member of the Port Phillip Association in Van Diemen's Land (now known as Tasmania), who negotiated a purchase of 600,000 acres (2,400 km²) with eight Wurundjeri elders.^[36][37]]. [He (John Batman) is best known for his role in the founding of the settlement on the Yarra River which became the city of Melbourne]

 

I like the name "Batman's Hill" or "Batman Hill". It's up there as good of a name as Henman Hill and Murray Mountain

Edited June 30, 2014 by Red or Dead

[bazzatron]

Here's a transcript of the treaty between John Batman and the local tribal chiefs at the time:

 

 

http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/batman-treaty-transcript.pdf
 

Know all Persons that We Three Brothers Jagajaga, Jagajaga, Jagajaga, being the Principal Chiefs, 

and also Cooloolock 

Bungarie, Yanyan, Moowhip and Mommarmalar 

being the Chiefs of a certain Native Tribe called Dutigallar situate at and near Port Phillip, Called 

by us. The above mentioned Chiefs Iramoo being possessed of the tract of Land hereinafter 

mentioned for and in consideration of Twenty Pair of Blankets, Thirty 

Tomahawks, One Hundred Knives Scissors, Thirty Looking Glasses, Two Hundred Handkerchiefs, 

and one Hundred Pounds of Flour, and Six Shirts 

delivered to Us by John Batman residing in Van Diemens Land Esquire but at present sojourning 

with us and our Tribe Do for ourselves our 

Heirs and Successors Give Grant Enfeoff and confirm unto the said John Batman his heirs and 

assigns All that tract of Country situate and being at Port Phillip, Runing 

from the branch of the River at the top of the Port about 7 Miles from the mouth of the River, Forty 

Miles North East and from thence - West. Forty Miles across Iramoo 

Downs or Plains and from thence South South West across Mount Vilanmarnartar to Geelong 

Harbour at the head of the same 

and containing about Five Hundred Thousand more or less Acres as the same hath been before the 

execution of these presents delineated and marked out by Us according to the custom of our Tribe 

by certain marks made upon the Trees growing along the boundaries of the said Tract of Land To 

hold the said Tract of Land, with all advantages belonging thereto unto and 

To the Use of the said John Batman his heirs and assigns for ever To the Intent that the said John 

Batman his heirs and assigns may occupy and possess the 

said tract of Land and place thereon Sheep and Cattle Yielding and delivering to us and our heirs or 

successors the yearly Rent or Tribute of One Hundred Pair of 

Blankets, One Hundred Knives, One Hundred Tomahawks, Fifty Suits of Clothing Fifty Looking 

glasses, Fifty Pair Scissors and Five Tons Flour In Witness 

whereof We Jagajaga, Jagajaga, Jagajaga, the above mentioned Principal Chiefs, and Cooloolock, 

Bungarie, Yanyan, Moowhip & Mommarmalar the Chiefs of 

the said Tribe have hereunto affixed our seals to these presents and have signed the same Dated 

according to the Christian Aera this Sixth day of June 

One thousand eight hundred and thirty five

 

Signed Sealed and Delivered in the presence of Us the same having 

been fully and properly interpreted and explained to the said Chiefs

 

James Gumm

Alexander Thompson 

Willm Todd

 

 

Signed on the Banks of Batman's Creek

6th June 1835 

 

Jagajaga his Mark 

Jagajaga his Mark Jagajaga his Mark 

Cooloolock his Mark 

Bungarie his Mark 

Yanyan his Mark 

Moowhip his Mark 

Mommarmalar his Mark 

John Batman

James Gumm

Alexander Thompson 

Willm Todd

 

 

Signed on the Banks of Batman's Creek

6th June 1835 

 

Jagajaga his Mark 

Jagajaga his Mark 

Jagajaga his Mark 

Cooloolock his Mark 

Bungarie his Mark 

Yanyan his Mark 

Moowhip his Mark 

Mommarmalar his Mark 

John Batman

 

 

Be it Remembered That on the day and year within 

written possession and delivery of the tract of Land within 

mentioned was made by the within named Jagajaga, 

Jagajaga, Jagajaga, Principal Chiefs and Cooloolock, Bungarie

Yanyan, Moowhip, Mommarmalar also ----

Chiefs of the Tribe of Natives called Dutigallar 

--- to the within named John Batman by 

the said Chiefs taking up part of the Soil of the said 

tract of Land and delivering the same to the said John 

Batman in the name of the whole 

 

 

Jagajaga his mark 

Jagajaga his mark 

Jagajaga his mark 

Cooloolock his mark 

Bungarie his mark 

Yanyan his mark 

Moowhip his mark 

Mommarmalar his mark 

In presents of

James Gumm

Alexander Thompson 

Willm Todd

 

If anything 1835 is a year that would be more sensitive as it was when some smelly, disease ridden Europeans came and bought a shit load of land for some blankets and knives. 

[hedaik]

Probably better off sending an e-mail to Rays Cafe in Brunswick, their clientele will probably be the only ones that would get offended at something stupid like this. 

[Heart is Melbourne]

Hey its not like anyone is suggesting wurrindjuri 1847

That I could understand being controversial and extremely insensitive.