Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Eventing Nation booted from covering Event in Unionville, PA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

    Yes, but in June of this year Leslie Wylie had a revelation that the word "plantation" is evil and launched a crusade to exorcise it from the eventing world, threatening excommunication to anyone who didn't fall into line.

    Funny how the language of religion is quite apt.
    Not so much religion as brand activism; https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article...port-the-cause
    ... _. ._ .._. .._

    Comment


      I’ve been following this conversation with much interest the past few days and have a few thoughts to add.

      First, I am wondering if the landowner was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract with the event. I suspect that the event would have ended without any intervention from EN. It was just so abrupt that it makes one question the timing and lack of discussion.

      Second, the approach that EN took was not a good one. They used a battering ram when a dremel tool may have been a better option. They did this landowner a disservice by trying to force this change.

      However, if I was looking for an example of systemic racism, I could not have come up with a better one. Here we have a wealthy individual with all the right connections- good school (UPenn), good career, family connections (the land has been in his family for generations), wealth, political connections and the list goes on. His response to a group that questioned the name of the event was to kick everyone out of the sandbox. In systemic racism, the group with the power does all they can to keep everyone else from participating. This appears to be an example of that.

      Please note that I didn’t say any of the individuals involved are racist. I don’t know them nor do I know how they feel or think. I am talking about the inherent racism in our society that will never be eradicated if we don’t admit it exists.

      I find myself saddened by this whole debacle. Both sides were wrong. But I am less concerned with the role EN played vs the role that systemic racism played in how this whole thing went down as that is a long standing issue with no end in sight. It’s hard to even get people to admit that it exists let alone work towards a resolution.

      Comment


        Originally posted by paddington View Post
        I’ve been following this conversation with much interest the past few days and have a few thoughts to add.

        First, I am wondering if the landowner was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract with the event. I suspect that the event would have ended without any intervention from EN. It was just so abrupt that it makes one question the timing and lack of discussion.

        Second, the approach that EN took was not a good one. They used a battering ram when a dremel tool may have been a better option. They did this landowner a disservice by trying to force this change.

        However, if I was looking for an example of systemic racism, I could not have come up with a better one. Here we have a wealthy individual with all the right connections- good school (UPenn), good career, family connections (the land has been in his family for generations), wealth, political connections and the list goes on. His response to a group that questioned the name of the event was to kick everyone out of the sandbox. In systemic racism, the group with the power does all they can to keep everyone else from participating. This appears to be an example of that.

        Please note that I didn’t say any of the individuals involved are racist. I don’t know them nor do I know how they feel or think. I am talking about the inherent racism in our society that will never be eradicated if we don’t admit it exists.

        I find myself saddened by this whole debacle. Both sides were wrong. But I am less concerned with the role EN played vs the role that systemic racism played in how this whole thing went down as that is a long standing issue with no end in sight. It’s hard to even get people to admit that it exists let alone work towards a resolution.
        In response to the portion I bolded...

        A smear is still a smear, even when you use the word “systemic” in front of it.

        You just went all into the guy’s background, which is personal. Then you speculated about his true motives (there is zero evidence that he secretly wanted to shut down this venue and cancel the lease... that’s another one of those pesky little “alternative reasons this sad situation possibly happened” that certain people are sprinkling around on social media in an effort to deflect attention and responsibility with respect to their own role in this mess. Believe it if you want to... but realize many other people don’t). Then you added the phrase “systemic racism” to the mix.

        And thus, my opinion is that your post is an unfortunate smear upon the property owner. But that’s just my opinion. We all have one. They’re like bellybuttons.

        Comment


          Originally posted by paddington View Post
          I’ve been following this conversation with much interest the past few days and have a few thoughts to add.

          First, I am wondering if the landowner was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract with the event. I suspect that the event would have ended without any intervention from EN. It was just so abrupt that it makes one question the timing and lack of discussion.

          Second, the approach that EN took was not a good one. They used a battering ram when a dremel tool may have been a better option. They did this landowner a disservice by trying to force this change.

          However, if I was looking for an example of systemic racism, I could not have come up with a better one. Here we have a wealthy individual with all the right connections- good school (UPenn), good career, family connections (the land has been in his family for generations), wealth, political connections and the list goes on. His response to a group that questioned the name of the event was to kick everyone out of the sandbox. In systemic racism, the group with the power does all they can to keep everyone else from participating. This appears to be an example of that.

          Please note that I didn’t say any of the individuals involved are racist. I don’t know them nor do I know how they feel or think. I am talking about the inherent racism in our society that will never be eradicated if we don’t admit it exists.

          I find myself saddened by this whole debacle. Both sides were wrong. But I am less concerned with the role EN played vs the role that systemic racism played in how this whole thing went down as that is a long standing issue with no end in sight. It’s hard to even get people to admit that it exists let alone work towards a resolution.
          And we have a winner. Right on ALL counts, except that I think the organizer, while he wanted the event to continue, equally set the tone for non-discussion of this issue.
          I find it interesting, too, that so much energy has been spent on criticizing EN for not asking “the right way.” How familiar is that in our current conversations around race: don’t protest, to kneel, don’t be so demanding, don’t be so abrasive.
          My earlier point, in raising the known, public social media history of the organizer (not the landowner) was that this person had already made it very clear that no manner of asking — not being flattery, not being polite, not even “following correct channels and going to the Area II chair” — was going to change his world view and response.
          So much energy spent defending the status quo, blaming EN for being difficult, and so little reflection on whether there might be a valid point here.

          Comment


            Originally posted by paddington View Post
            Here we have a wealthy individual with all the right connections- good school (UPenn), good career, family connections (the land has been in his family for generations), wealth, political connections and the list goes on. His response to a group that questioned the name of the event was to kick everyone out of the sandbox. In systemic racism, the group with the power does all they can to keep everyone else from participating. This appears to be an example of that.
            This sounds more like classism to me. The wealthy have always had superior connections and resources and strive to maintain them.

            Comment


              So now we are dropping the notion that it’s the fault of the organizer, and leaving alone the issue of his Facebook posts, and we are back to the issue of the property owner. But this time, instead of straight up accusing him of consorting with the devil...

              we are just saying that it looks to you like there are “systemic” indications that he consorts with the devil.

              So... the way I read this, is you all don’t want to straight up accuse either the organizer or the property owner of consorting with the devil because some of us have been poking holes in that like crazy...

              But you still want to support the righteous cause underlying cause.

              Any opinions on Robespierre? I’m joking... sort of... but seriously... feel free to respond to anything I just said, and I promise not to use all caps if I reply, and I promise not to call you names, or besmirch your character

              Comment




                Originally posted by paddington View Post
                His response to a group that questioned the name of the event was to kick everyone out of the sandbox. In systemic racism, the group with the power does all they can to keep everyone else from participating. This appears to be an example of that.

                The people participating, if you read all the other posts complaining about how exclusionary horses are, are not POC though. So this person kicked a bunch of other wealthy white people off his land. How is that racism?

                Edit to add - there is no snark in this question. It is sincere. I am have a hard time seeing how a richer white guy telling a bunch of not poor white people they can not play on his land anymore = racism.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Sandman View Post

                  And we have a winner. Right on ALL counts, except that I think the organizer, while he wanted the event to continue, equally set the tone for non-discussion of this issue.
                  I find it interesting, too, that so much energy has been spent on criticizing EN for not asking “the right way.” How familiar is that in our current conversations around race: don’t protest, to kneel, don’t be so demanding, don’t be so abrasive.
                  My earlier point, in raising the known, public social media history of the organizer (not the landowner) was that this person had already made it very clear that no manner of asking — not being flattery, not being polite, not even “following correct channels and going to the Area II chair” — was going to change his world view and response.
                  So much energy spent defending the status quo, blaming EN for being difficult, and so little reflection on whether there might be a valid point here.
                  Let's assume you're right. Was this issue--which apparently just occurred to even the "wokest" people at EN three months ago--worth killing an event over? Or was this the kind of issue where after being turned down, EN/USEF should have said internally, "Hey, the name is unfortunate. The world is changing, and we think this name is going to become more and more untenable as people focus increased attention on 'plantation' place names. Let's watch this issue develop and in the fullness of time it will almost certainly have to be changed."

                  It was the immediate nature of the demand that is problematic and indefensible. Sometimes you need to be willing to let things percolate for a while, especially when we are dealing a diverse community that includes many older, more conservative landowners.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by trubandloki View Post

                    The people participating, if you read all the other posts complaining about how exclusionary horses are, are not POC though. So this person kicked a bunch of other wealthy white people off his land. How is that racism?

                    Edit to add - there is no snark in this question. It is sincere. I am have a hard time seeing how a richer white guy telling a bunch of not poor white people they can not play on his land anymore = racism.
                    Just to clarify, you quoted my quote of paddington. I actually disagreed with paddington.

                    I completely agree with you.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                      This sounds more like classism to me. The wealthy have always had superior connections and resources and strive to maintain them.
                      Exactly. There is always, always a dance you have to play with these sorts of things. Let's say I am in a lily white community trying to raise money for my local land trust. I happen to know there are certain sponsors, certain volunteers, certain board members that have to approached correctly. If not approached correctly they are capable of kicking everyone out of 'their' sandbox. This is a normal (I am not saying it is morally 'right') part of relationships for any event, non-profit, or business. It is what EN and USEA failed at completely.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                        Just to clarify, you quoted my quote of paddington. I actually disagreed with paddington.

                        I completely agree with you.
                        Oops, I am afraid to edit it now. I had both quotes but things went haywire while I chopped them down. Sorry for the confusion.

                        I think I fixed it!

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by B and B View Post

                          Exactly. There is always, always a dance you have to play with these sorts of things. Let's say I am in a lily white community trying to raise money for my local land trust. I happen to know there are certain sponsors, certain volunteers, certain board members that have to approached correctly. If not approached correctly they are capable of kicking everyone out of 'their' sandbox. This is a normal (I am not saying it is morally 'right') part of relationships for any event, non-profit, or business. It is what EN and USEA failed at completely.
                          They only failed at it if their intent was collaboration with the landowner, and building a more cohesive and tolerant community that was welcoming to all.

                          If their goal however was to cast themself in the role of righteous hero standing up on behalf of aggrieved victims against a few powerful old white guys, while simultaneously driving more traffic to the EN site...

                          They succeeded.

                          Comment



                            Two thoughts; [related, unrelated - not sure]

                            1. The word Plantation in a title.

                            Over the years, any time that I've come across the name of this event, whether it be in the forums or as part of an article, I have to un-cringe myself a little bit. Just for that split second then I'm good to go. I most often put it down to a hyperactive radar - 'it's not in reference to slavery, nobody else seems bothered, trees, bushes ... blah blah blah'. It's easier to roll with the flow and move on.

                            I'm white, taking a break from eventing and not from the area. All of that plus I'm a sample of one so statistically meaningless I know. And if this thread is to be believed I'm in the minority in terms of that brush with discomfort. But strangely the conversation here has also underscored for me not to ignore gut reactions, even if that's the easier path. The better choice (personally) is to instead dust them off and have a good look at them.

                            2. I reject all of these unflattering generalizations being made about today's younger set. The young people that I interact with during the course of my week are for the most part informed, caring, and of quite extraordinary character in many ways. I'm in my third quarter now but if I were to hold myself up to examination at any similar age I might meet the measure in some manner but they'd likely have me beat in a few key areas.

                            So I call bull crap on that. I'm quite happy to see the next generation take over the reins and am rooting for them to do a spectacular job dealing with some of the unholy messes of every description that have been left to them.
                            One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
                            William Shakespeare

                            Comment


                              I just got an email inviting me to enter the Plantation Field STARTER trials. (starter was in all caps in the email, too)

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by B and B View Post

                                Exactly. There is always, always a dance you have to play with these sorts of things. Let's say I am in a lily white community trying to raise money for my local land trust. I happen to know there are certain sponsors, certain volunteers, certain board members that have to approached correctly. If not approached correctly they are capable of kicking everyone out of 'their' sandbox. This is a normal (I am not saying it is morally 'right') part of relationships for any event, non-profit, or business. It is what EN and USEA failed at completely.
                                USEF too. Ms. Autry, the former EN contributor and current USEF employee, also played a part it appears.

                                Comment

                                  Original Poster

                                  Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                                  Just to reassure you, I haven’t yet seen anyone on a different social media platform screeching, “I saw Goody Jealoushe with the Devil!!!” to the virtual congregation.

                                  As though that proves you were indeed dancing with the devil, and as though that is something we should all burn you at the stake for even if you were.

                                  But give it time. Give it time.
                                  oh, I've been the target a few times already

                                  Comment

                                    Original Poster

                                    Originally posted by Mango20 View Post
                                    I just got an email inviting me to enter the Plantation Field STARTER trials. (starter was in all caps in the email, too)
                                    from who? USEA or Plantation? What does this mean exactly ? Events are a go?

                                    Comment


                                      It's probably an automatic email for the opening of entries for the October trial. https://plantationfield.com/node/37
                                      ... _. ._ .._. .._

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                                        from who? USEA or Plantation? What does this mean exactly ? Events are a go?
                                        From Plantation. The opening date was 9/15, but the email just came this afternoon. It is from a Constant Contact subscription, though, so I don't know if it was scheduled at some earlier date to be sent today or not. A quick look at the Plantation website makes it seem as if it's still on, but I don't know how often that's updated, either.

                                        Comment



                                          Originally posted by paddington View Post
                                          I’ve been following this conversation with much interest the past few days and have a few thoughts to add.

                                          First, I am wondering if the landowner was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract with the event. I suspect that the event would have ended without any intervention from EN. It was just so abrupt that it makes one question the timing and lack of discussion.

                                          Second, the approach that EN took was not a good one. They used a battering ram when a dremel tool may have been a better option. They did this landowner a disservice by trying to force this change.

                                          However, if I was looking for an example of systemic racism, I could not have come up with a better one. Here we have a wealthy individual with all the right connections- good school (UPenn), good career, family connections (the land has been in his family for generations), wealth, political connections and the list goes on. His response to a group that questioned the name of the event was to kick everyone out of the sandbox. In systemic racism, the group with the power does all they can to keep everyone else from participating. This appears to be an example of that.

                                          Please note that I didn’t say any of the individuals involved are racist. I don’t know them nor do I know how they feel or think. I am talking about the inherent racism in our society that will never be eradicated if we don’t admit it exists.

                                          I find myself saddened by this whole debacle. Both sides were wrong. But I am less concerned with the role EN played vs the role that systemic racism played in how this whole thing went down as that is a long standing issue with no end in sight. It’s hard to even get people to admit that it exists let alone work towards a resolution.
                                          Originally posted by Sandman View Post

                                          And we have a winner. Right on ALL counts, except that I think the organizer, while he wanted the event to continue, equally set the tone for non-discussion of this issue.
                                          I find it interesting, too, that so much energy has been spent on criticizing EN for not asking “the right way.” How familiar is that in our current conversations around race: don’t protest, to kneel, don’t be so demanding, don’t be so abrasive.
                                          My earlier point, in raising the known, public social media history of the organizer (not the landowner) was that this person had already made it very clear that no manner of asking — not being flattery, not being polite, not even “following correct channels and going to the Area II chair” — was going to change his world view and response.
                                          So much energy spent defending the status quo, blaming EN for being difficult, and so little reflection on whether there might be a valid point here.
                                          These are both excellent posts. Thank you for your contributions.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X