In JC we trust. The AJAX Amsterdam Thread [R]

LOL at Joep and his happy face. "Steven ter Have is about to come in a min." *excited face* haha.

Wow speaking of Blind, he's not sure of his job anymore? Latest about Cruyff is that he wants to quit the RvC if the other members stay on.

 

Whaaa??? When did that happen?
So who do we play instead? Let's hope Ozbiliz is fit in time, cause I really don't want to see Ebecilio start a game this important

 

I'd love to see something like this against Lyon:

 

Ten Have says that Cruyff told Davids the only reason he's in the RvC is because he's black. Whether that's true or not is not even relevant I guess. Either way, oh dear.

 

Cruyff is our hero, but he's proven to be far from a saint. I don't think Davids is making this up and I can honestly see Cruyff saying stupid things like this during one of his rages.

Van Praag wants them to work together and I have more hope of him bringing the 2 together than Molenaar (who I admire, but he's obviously biased). Jack vs. Arno Vermeulen was also cringeworthy.

It's a shame that Coronel and his colleagues has stepped down, yet another 3 positions to be filled.

 

We only need a draw (albeit at least 1 - 1). I don't think such a side can cope against Lyons physical presence. Since we will probably have to defend more I think we can hit them on the counter and with both Ebecilio and Lukoki on board we can use their pace to trouble Lyon.

 

Ten Have just came live on the Studio Voetbal talkshow to confirm that Cruyff really said that. I am baffled to be honest, whether it's true or not.

You know the thing is, at a football club you do need an almost dictatorial entity to decide things. At Ajax with all its different management structures it just does not work. All the Van Gaal vs Cruyff debate and who's right or not is pointless. The bottom line is Ajax needs to unlist from the stock exchange. Get back to your traditional football management.

 

That's a lot of shorties though against what is arguably the most physical side of Ligue 1, there's a big chance that we will be overrun and overpowered.

 

We would still need the business savy kind of people like Ten Have. Ajax has too many cliques, that's the main problem.

 

Is not racism.

Uncheck

uncheck

uncheck

Uncheck


What Cruyff did was making an ad hominem fallacy. It's an attack on his capacity's, rather than discussing the arguments Davids makes. He appeals to the fact that society has accepted positive discrimination and that he got the appointment on basis of that. We can make the same statement in other ways:

"You are only here because you are the son of Balkenende"

"You are only here because you are a female"

"You are only here because your father runs this company"

"You are only here because you look cute"

It's all ad hominem. Attacking intelligence or ability, but not to attack his race. It is funny enough maybe an attack on his friend Molenaar, who was in charge of the appointments.

The word "zwart" has some kind of a loaded meaning in the Netherlands. However I have been called white many times in my life and have never taken offence from that. I think it still takes emotional healing before the objectiveness of some ones skin color is seen as just that.

What I am struck by is that in the RvC there is somebody with legal expertise and doesn't bring the remark of Cruyff with the remark to the public that they didn't stop the meeting because it was no racism. They bring it in a way so it can spin. They want to hurt him. If I read NOS they do use the term racism without checking if the claim of Davids in fact is racism in a legal way:

Racistische taal Cruijff tegen Davids

That guy at the table (don't know his name) of Studio Football experienced almost an orgasm when he could bring the news what Cruyff exactly said to Davids.

We will see what will happen now, but in this case I have made up my mind and I am calling it no racism.

 

Looks like what I envisioned could happen, may come true..

Eind goed, al goed?

 

Yes demeaning is the goal of ad hominem. They were probably in a word fight over a decision.

But do you agree with me it is not racism? If not, can you be very, very specific with an official definition you use and pinpoint for me how the quote of Cruyff qualifies as racism in your opinion? It's important to get clarity on the matter.

 

It's either racism or not. Your approach would not hold in the court of law. The judge will ask you what you claim and when you call racism you have to pick up the JC quote and make it qualify for the definition there is for it. You can't say "Well here in the US he would get fired as it is demeaning". Yes, that maybe true and that is maybe wrong or right (as in the Netherlands he would probably also as ten Have hinted at something like that), but Dutch media are now going to scream racism and in that case I want it to be true. You can't say it's borderline this or that. If you don't come up with a definition where it follows from than you don't have a case. Then we have to move on and calling it for what it is: an attack on his ability or knowledge to have better judgement on the matter than Cruyff or to be in the group at all.