Indigenous round?

[CENTURION]

My original post was the fact that it's not a full round. Not complaining about the concept at all.

[therisingblues]

England, for example, had local tribes before the Celts occupied it in pre-history and became the "Britanni" to the Romans who took it next.
The came Viking raiders from the Baltic shores, who eventually established the "Danelaw" over much of it.
Then there were Angle, Saxon, and Jutlander mercenaries who came to fight the cousins the "Danes" and decided to stay and rule.

Incorrect.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England the era before the Vikings. The Danelaw was actually established over Anglo-Saxon Britain. It was the Saxon King Alfred who held them in check and prevented the whole of England being over run by them. Another Saxon King, Ethelred, actually did allow them to over run the whole country.
Also, there is much evidence supporting the Celtic "invasion" of Britain being nothing more than cultural, ie. the Celts no more invaded Britain than the Greeks did Rome, yet the civilization was passed on in both instances.
There is also evidence that the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" was no more than a settlement, but I don't believe it as there's evidence to the contrary also. But everyone pretty much agrees that they were invited over by the Celts in order to fight off the Picts from Scotland.

[csbowes]

Its tokenism, someone felt guilty and this made them feel better.

Last time I checked nicking someone's country qualifies as something to feel guilty about.

And you're complaining about a bit of, albeit lame, marketing?

Go ahead and feel guilty then... I won't.

I didn't nick it... happy for you to put forward a policy to the government of the day to increase your personal taxes by 25% so you can pay war reparations to the indigenous population you've wronged though.

I think it's too bloody bad... conquest was the order of the day for a long time and at some point you have to stop whinging about it. My ethnic background means my ancestors have been conquered, subjugated and slaughtered, but I'd hardly support "my people" if they chose to whinge and carry on and bleat to the U.N expecting some sort of compensation.

[csbowes]

The only group that is not covered at all is White Australians.

But if anyone dared suggest such a round, they would be cast down as a racist and cynic.

100% correct.

That said, if a "white anglo-saxon" round was suggested, I'd be equally unimpressed and amazed at the leagues stupidity.

I'd see that (even) as a guilt round... oh we did an indigenous round, we better not offend the whites.

Give me a break.

[topsywaldron]

at some point you have to stop whinging about it.

You're the one whingeing about a round that simply celebrates the contribution Aboriginal players have made to the game you profess to love.

I'll leave it to others to guess at your motivations here.

[csbowes]

at some point you have to stop whinging about it.

You're the one whingeing about a round that simply celebrates the contribution Aboriginal players have made to the game you profess to love.

I'll leave it to others to guess at your motivations here.

Ahh self righteousness from a Norwood supporter... who would have thought...

Besides, I've made it clear I don't think celebrating one ethnic group over another, regardless of which group is chosen, is the way to go, when its blatantly obvious to all that picking certain groups would result in accusations of racism.

[CENTURION]

I sometimes think to myself that if I was of Aboriginal descent, I might feel a bit uneasy or even embarrassed sometimes by the way that we seem to be sucking up to them? just saying. It would be good to get an Aboriginal's perspective on this. JB?

[MATT IN WA]

Its tokenism, someone felt guilty and this made them feel better.

Last time I checked nicking someone's country qualifies as something to feel guilty about.

That is a rather thin argument..

Not according to the High Court of Australia.

Is that just a vibe?

[Media Park]

It's Mabo.

[The Sleeping Giant]

I hate all rounds with themes.
And I had a multicultural step dad and a woman in the house when growing up.
And I volunteered and am of indigenous descent.
I also have a few rivalries.
Complete waste of time IMHO.

Volunteering to get pissed doesn't count.

[MATT IN WA]

...and a woman in the house when growing up.

Sounds a bit sexist.

[Wedgie]

...and a woman in the house when growing up.

Sounds a bit sexist.

Yep, I am sexist, Ive always insisted my mother be a female.

[Psyber]

England, for example, had local tribes before the Celts occupied it in pre-history and became the "Britanni" to the Romans who took it next.
The came Viking raiders from the Baltic shores, who eventually established the "Danelaw" over much of it.
Then there were Angle, Saxon, and Jutlander mercenaries who came to fight the cousins the "Danes" and decided to stay and rule.

Incorrect.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England the era before the Vikings. The Danelaw was actually established over Anglo-Saxon Britain. It was the Saxon King Alfred who held them in check and prevented the whole of England being over run by them. Another Saxon King, Ethelred, actually did allow them to over run the whole country.
Also, there is much evidence supporting the Celtic "invasion" of Britain being nothing more than cultural, ie. the Celts no more invaded Britain than the Greeks did Rome, yet the civilization was passed on in both instances.
There is also evidence that the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" was no more than a settlement, but I don't believe it as there's evidence to the contrary also. But everyone pretty much agrees that they were invited over by the Celts in order to fight off the Picts from Scotland.

You are right about the sequence of the Danelaw being established, I must have had my brain turned off at the time of that post - I was having a busy day.

However, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (Jutlanders IIRC) were, like the Gotlanders and Friesians, some of many tribes from the northern (future) Germany and southern Scandinavian regions who went "Viking", which we tend to forget was an activity rather than a tribe or nation. The history I read recently suggested some of them were indeed hired as mercenaries to hold off the Picts as well as, later, other bands dropping in for a little "Viking", and just stayed rather than leave, taking over some territories, before the "Viking" tribes were powerful and organised enough to create the Danelaw.
(The Welsh tribes seem to have resisted "Angle-isation" well though.)

The Celtic culture seemed to be spread from Ireland to northern Italy, and beyond, but I agree there is uncertainty about how much was settlement - invited or uninvited - and how much merely cultural influence.
(Of course in that era people tended to just move around and boundaries were probably rather fluid.)

I enjoyed a book called "How the Irish saved Civilisation."
It quotes, and displays pictures of, some old Friesian texts found in Ireland, which shows those guys got around..

[sjt]

England, for example, had local tribes before the Celts occupied it in pre-history and became the "Britanni" to the Romans who took it next.
The came Viking raiders from the Baltic shores, who eventually established the "Danelaw" over much of it.
Then there were Angle, Saxon, and Jutlander mercenaries who came to fight the cousins the "Danes" and decided to stay and rule.

Incorrect.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England the era before the Vikings. The Danelaw was actually established over Anglo-Saxon Britain. It was the Saxon King Alfred who held them in check and prevented the whole of England being over run by them. Another Saxon King, Ethelred, actually did allow them to over run the whole country.
Also, there is much evidence supporting the Celtic "invasion" of Britain being nothing more than cultural, ie. the Celts no more invaded Britain than the Greeks did Rome, yet the civilization was passed on in both instances.
There is also evidence that the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" was no more than a settlement, but I don't believe it as there's evidence to the contrary also. But everyone pretty much agrees that they were invited over by the Celts in order to fight off the Picts from Scotland.

You are right about the sequence of the Danelaw being established, I must have had my brain turned off at the time of that post - I was having a busy day.

However, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (Jutlanders IIRC) were, like the Gotlanders and Friesians, some of many tribes from the northern (future) Germany and southern Scandinavian regions who went "Viking", which we tend to forget was an activity rather than a tribe or nation. The history I read recently suggested some of them were indeed hired as mercenaries to hold off the Picts as well as, later, other bands dropping in for a little "Viking", and just stayed rather than leave, taking over some territories, before the "Viking" tribes were powerful and organised enough to create the Danelaw.
(The Welsh tribes seem to have resisted "Angle-isation" well though.)

The Celtic culture seemed to be spread from Ireland to northern Italy, and beyond, but I agree there is uncertainty about how much was settlement - invited or uninvited - and how much merely cultural influence.
(Of course in that era people tended to just move around and boundaries were probably rather fluid.)

I enjoyed a book called "How the Irish saved Civilisation."
It quotes, and displays pictures of, some old Friesian texts found in Ireland, which shows those guys got around..

I think you may be right. I read about it in an Asterix book.

[scoob]

England, for example, had local tribes before the Celts occupied it in pre-history and became the "Britanni" to the Romans who took it next.
The came Viking raiders from the Baltic shores, who eventually established the "Danelaw" over much of it.
Then there were Angle, Saxon, and Jutlander mercenaries who came to fight the cousins the "Danes" and decided to stay and rule.

Incorrect.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England the era before the Vikings. The Danelaw was actually established over Anglo-Saxon Britain. It was the Saxon King Alfred who held them in check and prevented the whole of England being over run by them. Another Saxon King, Ethelred, actually did allow them to over run the whole country.
Also, there is much evidence supporting the Celtic "invasion" of Britain being nothing more than cultural, ie. the Celts no more invaded Britain than the Greeks did Rome, yet the civilization was passed on in both instances.
There is also evidence that the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" was no more than a settlement, but I don't believe it as there's evidence to the contrary also. But everyone pretty much agrees that they were invited over by the Celts in order to fight off the Picts from Scotland.

You are right about the sequence of the Danelaw being established, I must have had my brain turned off at the time of that post - I was having a busy day.

However, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (Jutlanders IIRC) were, like the Gotlanders and Friesians, some of many tribes from the northern (future) Germany and southern Scandinavian regions who went "Viking", which we tend to forget was an activity rather than a tribe or nation. The history I read recently suggested some of them were indeed hired as mercenaries to hold off the Picts as well as, later, other bands dropping in for a little "Viking", and just stayed rather than leave, taking over some territories, before the "Viking" tribes were powerful and organised enough to create the Danelaw.
(The Welsh tribes seem to have resisted "Angle-isation" well though.)

The Celtic culture seemed to be spread from Ireland to northern Italy, and beyond, but I agree there is uncertainty about how much was settlement - invited or uninvited - and how much merely cultural influence.
(Of course in that era people tended to just move around and boundaries were probably rather fluid.)

I enjoyed a book called "How the Irish saved Civilisation."
It quotes, and displays pictures of, some old Friesian texts found in Ireland, which shows those guys got around..

The SANFL invaded South Australia and now it feels guilty so they have a indigenous Round to ease their guilt... All the history that you need to know

[PhilH]

I hate all rounds with themes.
And I had a multicultural step dad and a woman in the house when growing up.
And I volunteered and am of indigenous descent.
I also have a few rivalries.
Complete waste of time IMHO.

Oh dear .... sorry to break it to you Wedgie but next Sunday's Eagles v North game is our annual Kids Day.

That's the bad news, good news is Vilis have again given us more free donuts to give away than we can probably handle.

[scoob]

I hate all rounds with themes.
And I had a multicultural step dad and a woman in the house when growing up.
And I volunteered and am of indigenous descent.
I also have a few rivalries.
Complete waste of time IMHO.

Oh dear .... sorry to break it to you Wedgie but next Sunday's Eagles v North game is our annual Kids Day.

That's the bad news, good news is Vilis have again given us more free donuts to give away than we can probably handle.

I love themed rounds

[Pseudo]

Why not do away with the pretence of the kids, and simply call round 20 "donut round"?

[RB]

'Cause the carpark at Elizabeth Oval will be smelling of rubber for weeks.

[Sky Pilot]

A round for the most persecuted people in the world. The White Male Anglo-Saxon Round.

Best post I've read on this site