All Whites
-
@shark said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
Soccer NZ, yet again thinking of ways to become even more irrelevant to the majority of New Zealanders...
You reckon the majority of NZers will be against this change? Why?
"Get woke go broke" exists as a phrase for a reason and that will be my summary.
I don't understand that. Sounds pretty weak.
Your obviously looking for an argument but I'm not going to give you one sorry. If you really think this is going to make NZ soccer more relevant and swell player numbers then jolly good. You can come online and say I told you so if it pleases you.
? No. I just don't think it will make them more irrelevant as you suggested.
Looking for an argument! That's fucking gold. Go Internetter!
I really have no idea why your so angry about this, my view is that it's just virtue signaling that simply turns off a large percentage of the population. Hence get woke go broke comment.
This isn't even anything to do with ideology but a repeatable phenomenon we see world-wide, Nickelodeon, CNN, Nike, NBA to name a few...Nickelodeon is about a third of what it once was, CNN lead ballooning, Nike not moving, NBA record low viewership's...
I'm just calling out cause and effect based off observed facts because increasingly woke simply increasingly alienates larger and larger cross sections of society. Whether you agree with that society or not - that's what happens...
I just can't see a name change affecting the All Whites unfavourably or otherwise.
What I find is that people squeal like little piggies when this sort of thing is brought up but after a bit it all goes away and everything remains the same bar the name/action
If the name change won't make any difference then why change it? I think that's the argument here. It's not a rebranding in the traditional sense, it's simply a weird knee-jerk reaction to a tiny minority getting "offended".
Or it's a sign of the times that people can get upset about or go with flow.
For me, as a supporter of the All Whites, I am happy that they stay the same and I am happy if they change. Either way, this decision doesn't affect me one bit
That's nice but incredibly enough other people might have a different opinion to you. Ultimately, if the only reason for changing a name (which is almost 40 years old and has until now ruffled zero feathers) is because a minuscule minority might be offended, then that's not a very good reason for changing it. Would you not agree with that?
I can see the logic for change and I'm not upset by it. 40 year is nothing in terms of history and it will be looked back in 200 years as a nothing part of their history.
What logic is that? The logic that we change something that a tiny number of people find offensive? There are probably more people who consider horse racing inhumane. Should we ban horse racing because of them? It's not like anyone will give a crap in 200 years right?
I'm just saying I can understand the logic and I'm OK with that. I will keep supporting NZ Football whatever their name is
So you'd be totally fine with horse racing being banned because it offends a tiny minority who don't even watch the sport?
Whats this "tiny minority" garbage that keeps cropping up on this thread? There are 2bn people who identify as African by heritage on the planet which is hardly a tiny minority who could be offended by a team name which comes across to the uninitiated as racially motivated. Is it silly that this might be the case? Yep. But that's a fuckload of people to educate vs a truly miniscule minority of NZ Football fans who might be a bit pissed that their team name gets changed.
What a compelling argument. As if most Africans could give a flying f about the name of the NZ soccer team. I think they have much more important issues to worry about. Your argument is as ridiculous as the billion or so people who identify as white European being offended by the All Blacks. Or short white people being offended by the Tall Blacks.
-
@majorrage said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@majorrage said in All Whites:
@mn5 said in All Whites:
How come the All Whites are in the firing line and not the All Blacks ?
Is it cos one team is iconic and dominant and the other is shit ?
They aren't in the firing line. NZ Football is taking this stance under the assumption of being in the firing line in the near future.
What's the "firing line"? Some tweets from people who introduce themselves with their preferred pronouns?
I think you are naive if you don't think Jacinda and her crew are not involved.
That's who I meant.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@shark said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
Soccer NZ, yet again thinking of ways to become even more irrelevant to the majority of New Zealanders...
You reckon the majority of NZers will be against this change? Why?
"Get woke go broke" exists as a phrase for a reason and that will be my summary.
I don't understand that. Sounds pretty weak.
Your obviously looking for an argument but I'm not going to give you one sorry. If you really think this is going to make NZ soccer more relevant and swell player numbers then jolly good. You can come online and say I told you so if it pleases you.
? No. I just don't think it will make them more irrelevant as you suggested.
Looking for an argument! That's fucking gold. Go Internetter!
I really have no idea why your so angry about this, my view is that it's just virtue signaling that simply turns off a large percentage of the population. Hence get woke go broke comment.
This isn't even anything to do with ideology but a repeatable phenomenon we see world-wide, Nickelodeon, CNN, Nike, NBA to name a few...Nickelodeon is about a third of what it once was, CNN lead ballooning, Nike not moving, NBA record low viewership's...
I'm just calling out cause and effect based off observed facts because increasingly woke simply increasingly alienates larger and larger cross sections of society. Whether you agree with that society or not - that's what happens...
I just can't see a name change affecting the All Whites unfavourably or otherwise.
What I find is that people squeal like little piggies when this sort of thing is brought up but after a bit it all goes away and everything remains the same bar the name/action
If the name change won't make any difference then why change it? I think that's the argument here. It's not a rebranding in the traditional sense, it's simply a weird knee-jerk reaction to a tiny minority getting "offended".
Or it's a sign of the times that people can get upset about or go with flow.
For me, as a supporter of the All Whites, I am happy that they stay the same and I am happy if they change. Either way, this decision doesn't affect me one bit
That's nice but incredibly enough other people might have a different opinion to you. Ultimately, if the only reason for changing a name (which is almost 40 years old and has until now ruffled zero feathers) is because a minuscule minority might be offended, then that's not a very good reason for changing it. Would you not agree with that?
I can see the logic for change and I'm not upset by it. 40 year is nothing in terms of history and it will be looked back in 200 years as a nothing part of their history.
What logic is that? The logic that we change something that a tiny number of people find offensive? There are probably more people who consider horse racing inhumane. Should we ban horse racing because of them? It's not like anyone will give a crap in 200 years right?
I'm just saying I can understand the logic and I'm OK with that. I will keep supporting NZ Football whatever their name is
So you'd be totally fine with horse racing being banned because it offends a tiny minority who don't even watch the sport?
Whats this "tiny minority" garbage that keeps cropping up on this thread? There are 2bn people who identify as African by heritage on the planet which is hardly a tiny minority who could be offended by a team name which comes across to the uninitiated as racially motivated. Is it silly that this might be the case? Yep. But that's a fuckload of people to educate vs a truly miniscule minority of NZ Football fans who might be a bit pissed that their team name gets changed.
What a compelling argument. As if most Africans could give a flying f about the name of the NZ soccer team. I think they have much more important issues to worry about. Your argument is as ridiculous as the billion or so people who identify as white European being offended by the All Blacks. Or short white people being offended by the Tall Blacks.
Yeah I have a feeling it’s not people of darker complexion who will be offended, more woke people of lighter complexion white knighting on their behalf.
Shit, I said ‘white knighting” is that racist ? Hope not.
As for Africa I’d imagine civil wars, AIDS, slavery, genocide and crippling hunger would be more pressing issues to worry about than the name of a footballing minnow.
-
@mn5 said in All Whites:
How come the All Whites are in the firing line and not the All Blacks ?
Is it cos one team is iconic and dominant and the other is shit ?
It’s the obvious question, if All Whites is potentially offensive then why isn’t All Blacks?
Or perhaps people could apply some context and stop renaming things because some idiot on Twitter shook an angry finger.
Neither name is offensive to anybody with more than a handful of brain cells.
-
Ok so if a team from an African nation played in an all black strip and called themselves the No Whites, that'd be ok too? Or perhaps a team from SA in white or black calling themselves the No Colours. It's ok because it just relates to the uniform.
Yeah ok that's not 100% the same but you're completely missing the guts of the issue if you don't think the name All Whites could be (mis)construed as racially influenced. To dismiss the issue so readily is to completely ignore reality.
If the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins have had to change their names then wake up, the writing is already on the wall.
-
@mn5 said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@shark said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
@hooroo said in All Whites:
@windows97 said in All Whites:
Soccer NZ, yet again thinking of ways to become even more irrelevant to the majority of New Zealanders...
You reckon the majority of NZers will be against this change? Why?
"Get woke go broke" exists as a phrase for a reason and that will be my summary.
I don't understand that. Sounds pretty weak.
Your obviously looking for an argument but I'm not going to give you one sorry. If you really think this is going to make NZ soccer more relevant and swell player numbers then jolly good. You can come online and say I told you so if it pleases you.
? No. I just don't think it will make them more irrelevant as you suggested.
Looking for an argument! That's fucking gold. Go Internetter!
I really have no idea why your so angry about this, my view is that it's just virtue signaling that simply turns off a large percentage of the population. Hence get woke go broke comment.
This isn't even anything to do with ideology but a repeatable phenomenon we see world-wide, Nickelodeon, CNN, Nike, NBA to name a few...Nickelodeon is about a third of what it once was, CNN lead ballooning, Nike not moving, NBA record low viewership's...
I'm just calling out cause and effect based off observed facts because increasingly woke simply increasingly alienates larger and larger cross sections of society. Whether you agree with that society or not - that's what happens...
I just can't see a name change affecting the All Whites unfavourably or otherwise.
What I find is that people squeal like little piggies when this sort of thing is brought up but after a bit it all goes away and everything remains the same bar the name/action
If the name change won't make any difference then why change it? I think that's the argument here. It's not a rebranding in the traditional sense, it's simply a weird knee-jerk reaction to a tiny minority getting "offended".
Or it's a sign of the times that people can get upset about or go with flow.
For me, as a supporter of the All Whites, I am happy that they stay the same and I am happy if they change. Either way, this decision doesn't affect me one bit
That's nice but incredibly enough other people might have a different opinion to you. Ultimately, if the only reason for changing a name (which is almost 40 years old and has until now ruffled zero feathers) is because a minuscule minority might be offended, then that's not a very good reason for changing it. Would you not agree with that?
I can see the logic for change and I'm not upset by it. 40 year is nothing in terms of history and it will be looked back in 200 years as a nothing part of their history.
What logic is that? The logic that we change something that a tiny number of people find offensive? There are probably more people who consider horse racing inhumane. Should we ban horse racing because of them? It's not like anyone will give a crap in 200 years right?
I'm just saying I can understand the logic and I'm OK with that. I will keep supporting NZ Football whatever their name is
So you'd be totally fine with horse racing being banned because it offends a tiny minority who don't even watch the sport?
Whats this "tiny minority" garbage that keeps cropping up on this thread? There are 2bn people who identify as African by heritage on the planet which is hardly a tiny minority who could be offended by a team name which comes across to the uninitiated as racially motivated. Is it silly that this might be the case? Yep. But that's a fuckload of people to educate vs a truly miniscule minority of NZ Football fans who might be a bit pissed that their team name gets changed.
What a compelling argument. As if most Africans could give a flying f about the name of the NZ soccer team. I think they have much more important issues to worry about. Your argument is as ridiculous as the billion or so people who identify as white European being offended by the All Blacks. Or short white people being offended by the Tall Blacks.
Yeah I have a feeling it’s not people of darker complexion who will be offended, more woke people of lighter complexion white knighting on their behalf.
Shit, I said ‘white knighting” is that racist ? Hope not.
As for Africa I’d imagine civil wars, AIDS, slavery, genocide and crippling hunger would be more pressing issues to worry about than the name of a footballing minnow.
I'm sure all those African citizens are consumed daily by nothing but those issues (by the way you left out piracy among your stereotypes of day to day concerns of the good folk of Sierra Leone, Zaire, Ethiopia, Tunisia etc) and couldn't possibly spare a passing consideration for a team calling themselves the All Whites from a predominantly European former British colony.
-
@shark said in All Whites:
Ok so if a team from an African nation played in an all black strip and called themselves the No Whites, that'd be ok too? Or perhaps a team from SA in white or black calling themselves the No Colours. It's ok because it just relates to the uniform.
Yeah ok that's not 100% the same but you're completely missing the guts of the issue if you don't think the name All Whites could be (mis)construed as racially influenced. To dismiss the issue so readily is to completely ignore reality.
If the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins have had to change their names then wake up, the writing is already on the wall.
Ok, but by your argument above we need to change the All Blacks name too.
Or are you saying the White part is offensive.
-
@kirwan I'm saying be realistic. We're lucky that we're a tiny nation and an even lesser footnote in the football World so while this has reared its head again, I'm sure it'll also go away just as quick. But be prepared for it to come back, and with more frequency and intensity as the world becomes more and more introspective. And yes, the All Blacks might eventually strike the same issue. The fortunate thing is that it's assumed white people have a thicker skin re racism due to historically being the oppressors, so it's unlikely to get a lot of air if raised and would disappear really quickly. But eventaully a vocal minority will get hold of it and simply by virtue of the words all and black being used together will make it a race issue. Which will be ludicrously ironic given a large proportion of our team have Maori or Pacific Island heritage and darker skin and the rest are pasty European lads and they're a fine example of close inter-racial bonding.
-
Lastly, if you're adamant the name All Whites couldn't and shouldn't take offence, go and grab a white tee shirt that says All Whites on the front - with a black fern on it also - and see what sort of looks you get as you saunter down the main drag of the capital of Botswana, or even walking through Harlem, NYC.
-
The insanity is so pure it's almost beautiful.
-
I was going to suggest using a generic place holder name like the Washington Redskins are. Something like the "New Zealand Senior Men's Soccer Team".
Then I realized the country name is offensive, Senior Men is both ageist and sexist, and Soccer? That would be the most controversial bit of all. Problematic all around.
Best to stick with All Whites.
-
@shark said in All Whites:
@kirwan I'm saying be realistic. We're lucky that we're a tiny nation and an even lesser footnote in the football World so while this has reared its head again, I'm sure it'll also go away just as quick. But be prepared for it to come back, and with more frequency and intensity as the world becomes more and more introspective. And yes, the All Blacks might eventually strike the same issue. The fortunate thing is that it's assumed white people have a thicker skin re racism due to historically being the oppressors, so it's unlikely to get a lot of air if raised and would disappear really quickly. But eventaully a vocal minority will get hold of it and simply by virtue of the words all and black being used together will make it a race issue. Which will be ludicrously ironic given a large proportion of our team have Maori or Pacific Island heritage and darker skin and the rest are pasty European lads and they're a fine example of close inter-racial bonding.
Paragraphs are free.
I don’t agree with the sort of generalisations people have to make about a large group of people to get this sort of tortured logic to make sense.
You just labelled white people as historically being the oppressors. That just white guilt nonsense and trying to view history through modern morality.
Some white people were, some weren’t. Some were for slavery, some weren’t. The race of a particular country is not the relevant factor in their actions as a country or as individuals.
If you look at all history, all cultures have dominated others for one reason or another. It had nothing to do with their hair colour or the pigment in their skin. Skin colour is incidental.
Racism will always exist when generalise people actions by silly characteristics. I actually think we are going backwards by grouping people like this, and making the problem worse.
-
-
@shark said in All Whites:
Lastly, if you're adamant the name All Whites couldn't and shouldn't take offence, go and grab a white tee shirt that says All Whites on the front - with a black fern on it also - and see what sort of looks you get as you saunter down the main drag of the capital of Botswana, or even walking through Harlem, NYC.
Why the fuck would I wear an All Whites shirt, THAT is offensive.
And to address you silly hypothetical, I guess I would credit the locals of both places with more intelligence than you are and it wouldn’t be an issue.
And if it was I’d just explain it’s the team name and we play in all white. That would probably work better in Africa to be honest as the US is in deep trouble with sort of silliness.
Be nice to keep it away from NZ.
-
At the end of the day they are called the All Whites because they wear all white. What gives it away? Their farking kit that's what. Its not like you don't have thousands or probably millions of sports teams around the globe named after the colour of their kit.
If someone is still triggered or offended even after being given that simple explanation then I think it's pretty farking clear that they're the ones with the problem.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@majorrage said in All Whites:
@mn5 said in All Whites:
How come the All Whites are in the firing line and not the All Blacks ?
Is it cos one team is iconic and dominant and the other is shit ?
They aren't in the firing line. NZ Football is taking this stance under the assumption of being in the firing line in the near future.
What's the "firing line"? Some tweets from people who introduce themselves with their preferred pronouns?
Who then cause shit all over social media, who then get published in the mainstream media by lazy / thick journalists, all of which potentially affects the credibility of the team for a significant (but not necessarily large) portion of the public (mainly the idiots) who then won't let their idiot sons and / or daughters play or watch the sport, which further affects the credibility of the sport, which then obviously affects sponsorship and money into the sport (because Nike and all other likely sponsors have also gone woke), which means there's less money for the players and more importantly the administrators at all levels, which is actually what the name change is really seeking to avoid
-
-
@kirwan said in All Whites:
@mn5 said in All Whites:
How come the All Whites are in the firing line and not the All Blacks ?
Is it cos one team is iconic and dominant and the other is shit ?
It’s the obvious question, if All Whites is potentially offensive then why isn’t All Blacks?
Or perhaps people could apply some context and stop renaming things because some idiot on Twitter shook an angry finger.
Neither name is offensive to anybody with more than a handful of brain cells.
On one of the recent occassions ABs were in Chicago so recall someone doing some street interviews and asking about what people knew about the All Blacks. Some bloke made a race connection which, as the time I found a little sad but quite amusing.
This All Whites thing is just sad.
This isn't a race thing, it's the description of a colour (well, a tone). Plenty of other sports teams are named after their uniform colour: Red Sox, White Sox, Lea Bleus, the Blues (can think of two), Two Blues, Red Legs ...
Am not quite sure where thus thread is living (I've clicked on it from unread) but it's a political issue, not a sports one.
If the name change was proposed to distance themselves from the association with rugby then fair enough. By I'm sad that we can't even describe a colour of a shirt without snowflakes (hate the terminology) thinking we're the Ku Klux Klan.
