When does the present begin?

I’m trying to keep track of this.

So Heritier Lumumba condemns the Collingwood Football Club – as a whole – as a racist organisation. When all the players sign an apology and vow to do better, Lumumba asks why young players who’ve had no part of the systemic racism had to sign the apology.

So I’m unsure if the whole club is meant to be racist or not, or if we’re still searching for a way how to process this, or if this is the best representation of how all of this remains so unclear.

On Facebook, Simon Buckley (a Pie from 2011 to 2012) and Shae McNamara argue about the time in question. Simon Buckley claims Lumumba had no issue with the nickname. McNamara says Simon Buckley can’t speak for Lumumba and doesn’t understand that sometimes you accept things just to fit in.

The two go back and forth. McNamara says he can tell everybody a thing or two. Simon Buckley challenges him to. Lumumba chimes in and answers Buckley courteously, and says he’s open to a private chat.

On Twitter, McNamara opens up, speaking diplomatically but with an air of televangelism, acknowledging a number of key Collingwood figures who he claims effectively ignored what was going on – among them Eddie McGuire, Nathan Buckley, Scott Pendlebury, Nick Maxwell and Luke Ball.

(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

McNamara played for Collingwood from 2010 to 2012 – two of those three years were under premiership coach Mick Malthouse, who somehow escapes this widespread criticism. This is not intended to impugn or condemn Malthouse, but it is just an interesting observation about selectivity in memory.

Sharrod Wellingham (at Collingwood from 2008 to 2012) says he never experienced racism at Collingwood, while Dayne Beams (2009 to 2014 and 2019) says that the nickname was used, Lumumba was a party to it, but Beams feels if they were asked to stop, the group had the strength of character to address the issue.

Leon Davis (2000 to 2011) comes out and says there were racial problems at Collingwood from the moment he arrived, and lists several examples – including a player profile that was filled in for him with racial asides.

Presumably, this is also meant to explain the Heritier Lumumba (then Harry O’Brien) player profile that’s emerged on social media, showing Lumumba himself cited the nickname in question as one of his nicknames. That would seem he was fine with it. Unless he was fine with it to fit in. Or, as Davis is implying, somebody else filled in the profile.

And now Cameron Cloke is the latest to join the fray, saying that in his time (2004 to 2006; Lumumba arrived in 2006) he heard nothing, and can we now move past this and just focus on footy?

One of Collingwood’s pre-eminent supporters, Joffa, posted Cameron Cloke’s message on Facebook. Former Pie Chris Egan (2005 to 2008) then emerged to dispute Cloke’s claim in Joffa’s post, and the two had a civil discussion about it.

Prior to all this, Eddie McGuire (when he was Collingwood president) has said Collingwood has repeatedly reached out to Lumumba, but to no avail.

(Photo by Darrian Traynor/Getty Images)

Nathan Buckley said he hadn’t heard the nickname, but among all the murmurings leading up to this, it emerged that when the nickname was brought up as an issue, it stopped being used.

That’s it and nobody’s been left out.

So where does all that leave us?

One of the problems in exploring this issue is that too many people are pursuing absolutes: the truth must absolutely be this or that – that what happened was racist, and nothing else matters, or that Lumumba had absolutely no problem with it (and thus it’s not racist), and is twisting what happened now for his own end game.

And it’s got to be one way or the other. That’s it. That’s the world we’re living in. One side must triumph. The other side must be crushed. Forget actual discussion. The triumphant will write the narrative and the defeated will be condemned in perpetuity. So both sides batter away at one another in this endless to and froing where no quarter is given.

There’s no doubt Collingwood has had racial indiscretions in their past. The public ones are well documented. I can’t speak for the inner sanctum of the club since I’m not a party to their day-to-day operations. But I can say that as a supporter I heard things in the 1980s and 1990s in the outer, but haven’t heard anything in the 2000s and 2010s.

That’s not to say they don’t happen – they obviously do. In all likelihood, there will always be incidents. We just have to go back to what happened with Adam Goodes in 2013. Or what happened with Eddie Betts when Adelaide played Port Adelaide. But they aren’t as common as they once were, which shows we’re growing up.

Is it going to happen overnight? No. It’s an ongoing journey – just as any form of growth is. Changes doesn’t come instantly. It’s a long, difficult process fraught with backslides, frustrations and distractions. But we generally will do our best to persevere until the new behaviours become the default position.

In regards to what’s happening at Collingwood with Lumumba, it’s becoming an exercise in futility to find that clarity because we will never reach an absolute truth. We all remember things differently. We all have different outlooks. Talk to any family member or friend about some occasion years ago, and you’re bound to have different memories of it.

Whether Lumumba had no issue with it at the time or tolerated it to fit in is no longer irrelevant, because it did happen. We know that. That’s one aspect that isn’t in dispute. We’re actually arguing about context, which is taking us away from the real discussion.

This doesn’t invalidate anybody’s account. And it doesn’t mean anybody has to be discredited, shunned and humiliated. We seem so often to pursue truth with a zeal that has no time for nuance, empathy or understanding. It becomes about castigation, which would seem the least enlightened outlook to take.

(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

We can’t go back and change what was. It’s there. It was done. I don’t write this to trivialise it or dismiss it. But the hubbub surrounding it isn’t constructive to the discussion that should be explored, and we’re getting stuck there in that tug of war, which could go on indefinitely.

This is something I learnt myself the hard way.

I was hit by a car in 2011 and had my right leg busted badly. A driver ran a light when I had the right of way. It left me with chronic pain, and permanent damage that restricts me. I can no longer run. My ankle feels as if it’s been taped up so that it has barely any flexion. And I have nerve damage that means part of the injury is often experiencing weird and unpleasant sensations – and probably will the rest of my life.

I could constantly go back to the day in the question and rant at the driver responsible – and, to be honest, I did that in the first year as the extent of the damage became evident, and I was doing endless sessions of physio, hydro, nerve blocks and pain seminars. But since then, I’ve learnt I can’t continue to exist in that moment. It happened. I’ve had to process it, accept it and work out a way to move forward.

To Heritier, I am sorry your time at Collingwood was demeaning and has become the source of pain. I can’t imagine it was all miserable, but it’s beginning to feel as if it was, which is a shame since you were part of a group that achieved something so few groups at Collingwood achieve (despite so many efforts).

To the other players who’ve shared their accounts one way or another, thanks, but all these differing views just show we’re never going to agree on one version.

What we’re left with (or should be left with) is the intent to – just as the title of the report Collingwood commissioned states – do better from hereon.

And that doesn’t apply exclusively to Collingwood, but also to other clubs and organisations across the country.

Let’s start writing a new narrative, instead of getting stuck on disputing the old one.