All Whites
-
-
@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.
-
@shark said in All Whites:
I'm playing devil's advocate really. I'm not advocating for change. But I am very surprised there isn't more acceptance on here of the base issue. Railing against it and shouting it down isn't going to make it go away forever.
I'd say the reason for that is the argument itself is based on a false premise.
-
@booboo said in All Whites:
@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.
I agree but is the word 'All' that is the driver for the review.
Storm in a teacup. The team is only the All Whites to fans and themselves. If they play a game or tournament they are NZ.
Keep the nickname as an ironic reference to the ABs but scrap it from any 'official' stuff as you are in odds with the world football community by doing that anyway. -
@crucial said in All Whites:
@booboo said in All Whites:
@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.
I agree but is the word 'All' that is the driver for the review.
Storm in a teacup. The team is only the All Whites to fans and themselves. If they play a game or tournament they are NZ.
Keep the nickname as an ironic reference to the ABs but scrap it from any 'official' stuff as you are in odds with the world football community by doing that anyway.Yeah that's the guts of it. If they were the NZ White Shirts then it's clear and obvious and there's no room for misinterpretation.
-
@junior 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?
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
It doesn't have to be that way. Simply clearly explain the origins of the name and history behind it. Anyone who then still has a problem with it will just expose themselves for the lunatics they are. Case in point: this thread.
-
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Whites:
@junior 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?
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
It doesn't have to be that way. Simply clearly explain the origins of the name and history behind it. Anyone who then still has a problem with it will just expose themselves for the lunatics they are. Case in point: this thread.
We aren't important enough that people will bother to educate themselves.
Besides it's a dumb explanation. "Because our country has a rugby team called the All Blacks"
Just keep the name in-house and for fans. -
@bovidae said in All Whites:
I have a NZ football shirt and it doesn't actually have "All Whites" written on it. There is a black silver fern with "New Zealand Football" written below it. Unlike the AB jersey, which does say "All Blacks".
Well that's torpedos Shark's hypothetical pretty comprehensively.
-
-
-
@kirwan said in All Whites:
@bovidae said in All Whites:
I have a NZ football shirt and it doesn't actually have "All Whites" written on it. There is a black silver fern with "New Zealand Football" written below it. Unlike the AB jersey, which does say "All Blacks".
Well that's torpedos Shark's hypothetical pretty comprehensively.
Thoroughly incorrect. The hypothetical scenario still stands as I never said it would be a playing shirt. It could be a NZ soccer version of some of the cheap All Blacks knock off crap you see around, as an example. And I wonder in fact if NZ Football normally don't have the nickname on the shirt, possibly due to the potential for the team name to be misinterpeted ala the entire thread premise?
-
@kiwimurph said in All Whites:
This is all great publicity for New Zealand football.
For all 48 paying attention
