Comprehension is not your strong point is it? This is what happens when you quote pieces of text OUT OF CONTEXT, and then attack the quote
Now, try reading it IN CONTEXT with what came before it (my emphasis to make it easier for you!)
[TEXTAREA]The poaching myth is just that, a myth, a falsehood and an outright lie, perpetrated by second rate so-called journalists who spend too much time interviewing their own laptops, and not enough time fact-checking or talking to real people. They appear to get most of their information from the University of Google.
Most of them have never had the courage to wander outside their privileged, white, middle-class comfort zones. It appears to be mostly English journalists who believe this myth, and perpetrate it...
Because they live in a country where they see people who were born there, and who have lived there all their lives, still calling Pakistan "home".
Because they accept it as normal for someone to call themselves an "Afro-Caribbean" or a "French-Ghanaian"
Because they see "brown" people with heavy "English" accents who have clearly lived there for a very long time, waving Indian flags at an England v India cricket match.
Because they see New Zealand as a "white" country; conveniently ignoring the fact that native New Zealanders were in fact Maori, not European.
I guess it is hardly surprising that they don't get it when a "brown" person who was born and/or grew up in New Zealand, sees himself as a New Zealander, has a national pride for New Zealand and a passion to play for his country. They find this strange and they become suspicious.
[/TEXTAREA]
This needs no clarification. If you don't take the comment out of context in the first place, then its perfectly clear to anyone with elementary school comprehension skills.
I haven't misunderstood anything mate, I've pointed out that it reads badly, and even with the additional paragraphs you've highlighted it still comes across ambiguous.
The reason for this is because you open your whole article with an absolute statement by referring to Europe and British people as a whole, and lay your "i'm going to have a swipe" stance straight from the off by referring to something completely irrelevant to rugby in cricket:
There is a perception in Europe, particularly in Britain, that New Zealand "talent strips" the Pacific Islands of rugby players, stocking their own competitions for the benefit of their own teams, and that the All Blacks are overflowing with this stolen talent.
Ok, you reference journalists as an after the fact, but that opening gambit is an absolute that clearly references the Rugby community in Europe and Britain lumping them all in together and as such your whole article reads as a generic statement against the occupants of Britain a midst a bitter swipe.
Additionally I find your continued use of "they" in regards to a nation and your reference to "Brown" people and mixing of race and national identity throughout the article, as well as the assumption that anyone who believes that New Zealand have poached is automatically a racist bigot who do no understand immigration, as extremely distasteful and just as bad as those you are denouncing. It also contradicts itself, by saying they somehow find it acceptable in some circumstances but then label them bigots in regards to New Zealand.
It's also interesting that you quantify your denouncement of their poaching statement purely on whether the end result produces an all black or not.
Britain and Europe is a complex melting pot of races and national identities that dwarfs the immigration issues in New Zealand, additionally Britain has long had a tradition of cross border nationals representing one of the other countries, as a result we've actually got a lot more tolerant history of immigration in sport than New Zealand will ever have.
But the whole, excellent, factual side of the article is completely undermined by your continued reference to undefined articles and opinions etc.. in Britain (why do you focus it solely on Britain when you open with Europe and Britain?) and the fact you resort to anecdotal rhetoric and insults at the end.
Look, this discussion could go very badly very quickly, which is not what i'm intending, i just find your article quite insulting in places and teetering on the edge of labeling everyone a bigot - i realise this isn't what you meant by it but that's how it comes across.
The factual content is really interesting, i'd love for someone to do a similar study revolving around England.