Andrew Symonds is at fault himself

[Matt79]

ill be honest bruv.....you really are a miserable, hateful and disgraceful person. TBH...you said u dont like Sreesanth...good 4 you...i dont like you....for obvious reasons...im sorry, but thats just how it has to be....

God, have a cry...

 

[Laurrz]

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/indvaus/content/current/story/316202.html

'I never complained'

 

[social]

He didn't probably make the official complaint. But every interview of his had something about this issue. Obviously, he had to answer if he was asked about it, but there were better ways to answer and he didn't help himself with his answers.

IMO, Symonds has been incredibly dignified about the whole affair.

Imagine if the same had been directed towards NBA stars - that situation would be really ugly

 

[R_D]

This conversation looks like fun. I want in.

Before I start, I would love to see someone question my bias on India/Australia issues. I was born in North Wales of an Indian mother (who moved to England in her late teens in the 1960s, and thus was subject to racism of some magnitude) and an English father, and I have lived in Australia since I was a toddler. I am fiercely proud of my Indian heritage (just as I am of my British heritage and my Australian upbringing)- and if I wasn't I would face the wrath of that aforementioned Indian mother. She is NOT to be messed with.

Yes, racism (in it's most broadest possible sense) exists in every culture in the world, just as it has in every culture that has existed since the dawn of time. Seeing differences in people based on racial differences is a part of the human condition. Only the extent differs, between very superficial to wholly ingrained. To suggest otherwise is giving the human race far too much credit.

To answer another question posted previously (I think it was asked by honestbharani, but I am far too lazy to read back through the thread to confirm this)- yes, caste discrimination exists in all societies as well, but again to varying extents. In other places is is called class discrimination or something else, and in other places it is called the Rwandan genocide.

(For those getting ready to tell me that the conflict between the hutus and the tutsis is a racial one- the distinction is a racially artificial one, created by colonists as a way of dividing in order to rule. They are different social classes of the same race. But we're not here to discuss Rwanda, so I'll shut up about this now.)

Other examples include the class warfare of Khmer-era Cambodia, the gulags of Soviet Russia, the French Reign of Terror, and the feudal system of pretty much every pre-1800 monarchy. They are all examples of class distinction and discrimination, which happens everywhere. It just happens to be far more subtle in contemporary western societies.

Andy Symonds DIDN'T make a huge deal of the issue, he merely mentioned it and commented on it. If you read his first interviews on the subject, he actually was at pains to downplay the issue- I believe his quote was something along the lines of, "yeah, it was a bit disappointing, but I'm not the most serious bloke in the world, so it didn't affect me too much." The media definitely did run with it, though- and it wasn't just the Australian media.

I am all but convinced that the first occurrence of the "monkey chants" was NOT racially based, but rather just a generic zoological insult, comparable to calling someone a goose or a donkey or the like.

After the first instance and the publicity that followed, it became widely known that calling a black man a "monkey" drew racial connotations. The two instances that followed, therefore, were the result of segments of the crowd knowing that it would offend Symonds due to his racial background, and therefore WAS racially motivated.

As for the "myth" of the photographs of the "monkey" antics- unless cricinfo doctored a photo, then it was no myth. It was there, and for all I know still is. Again, FAR too lazy to find it and check.

Also, there seems to be a notion that the way to defend countrymen against examples of racism is to quote events where the country of the victim displayed racism. Racism isn't a defence for racism, it just reaffirms the fact that racists are everywhere, and that they are all just as bad as each other.

Mark Waugh was, in his usual laconic manner, addressing Symonds, and not the media. I watched the show, and the conversation that contained the mentioned quote.

Symonds attitude is completely irrelevant to his being racially insulted by a segment of the crowds. If you don't like what he says, then boo him until his ears bleed, or make fun of his Raggedy-Ann hairstyle, or his ridiculous looking zinc cream, or the fact that his test bowling average is higher than his batting average, or whatever. Don't attack the guy on the basis of his race- that just means that you lack imagination and wit, and are beneath contempt.

I'll add to this by saying that while I have no doubt that Sreesanth (and probably Harbhajan) is going to get an absolute pasting from the crowd if he tours Australia (which is, in my view, fine and dandy), if segments of the Australian crowd resort to racism, then they will be every bit as contemptible as those who have committed the same sin in India.

The BCCI are idiots for (initially) trying to sweep the issue under the carpet with their silly justifications. CA are neutered pillocks for not standing up for their player and (initially) going along with the BCCI's nonsense. As always, the ICC showed how irrelevent they are by doing and saying nothing aside from writing a few letters.

Strangely, I find the ICC's (and, in particular, Malcolm Speed's) anemic responses curiously comforting. I'm pretty sure that the ICC displaying any sort of leadership qualifies as a sign of the apocalypse at this point, and I'm sure no one wants that.



I hereby decide that I have owned everyone here. As someone who regularly surfs the internet AND who occasionally posts on message board (oh yes), I feel I am qualified as an expert on this and all other issues. Case closed.

You're all welcome.



Aww shucks. Thank you. Hopefully my writing ability properly conveys humour, too.

(HINT, HINT)

My thoughts exactly..

Excellent post by the way.

 

[sirdj]

Trying to deny the existence of ANY racism at all in any country is just ignorant. Absolutely ignorant.

can you accuse black african country like kenya etc of racism?? They don't want the whites there but its not because of racism. India is similarly a 'colored' country and hence not racist theoretically.

Animal insults may be quite common in India, but Symonds seemed to be the only Australian team member to be the target of them, and they were constantly the SAME animal. This isn't a conicidence. This is racism.

The fans targetted Symonds for 3 reasons
-he was the biggest sledger(or percieved to be) in the Aussie team(during this series).
-he was accessible to them(fielding near the boundaries)
-they wanted to get at him for sledging the indian team.

Ponting/Clarke would have been targeted too had they been accessible. Lee and Gilchrist are popular with the Indians because of all the Ads that they do on the Indian channels so they would not be sledged by the crowds.

Even look in the cricbuzz chats when games are on. I've seen Symonds described as monkey, ****** and so forth on there by Indian fans.

That is hearsay, India has a regular football league and many africans play in the club sides for the last 30 odd years. Not one incident of racism has been reported during any of the football matches.

And caste and colour 'bias' is just a nice word for racism. If I say black people suck, that's a colour bias. It's still racism.

You have absolutely no idea what casteism is, its discussion is beyond the scope of this forum. Color bias is not that black people suck but darker skinned indians are not as attractive and fairer skinned indians, its about the concept of beauty nothing beyond that. Besides how can it be racism when its the same race that the bias is against??!!

 

[honestbharani]

This conversation looks like fun. I want in.

Before I start, I would love to see someone question my bias on India/Australia issues. I was born in North Wales of an Indian mother (who moved to England in her late teens in the 1960s, and thus was subject to racism of some magnitude) and an English father, and I have lived in Australia since I was a toddler. I am fiercely proud of my Indian heritage (just as I am of my British heritage and my Australian upbringing)- and if I wasn't I would face the wrath of that aforementioned Indian mother. She is NOT to be messed with.

Yes, racism (in it's most broadest possible sense) exists in every culture in the world, just as it has in every culture that has existed since the dawn of time. Seeing differences in people based on racial differences is a part of the human condition. Only the extent differs, between very superficial to wholly ingrained. To suggest otherwise is giving the human race far too much credit.

To answer another question posted previously (I think it was asked by honestbharani, but I am far too lazy to read back through the thread to confirm this)- yes, caste discrimination exists in all societies as well, but again to varying extents. In other places is is called class discrimination or something else, and in other places it is called the Rwandan genocide.

(For those getting ready to tell me that the conflict between the hutus and the tutsis is a racial one- the distinction is a racially artificial one, created by colonists as a way of dividing in order to rule. They are different social classes of the same race. But we're not here to discuss Rwanda, so I'll shut up about this now.)

Other examples include the class warfare of Khmer-era Cambodia, the gulags of Soviet Russia, the French Reign of Terror, and the feudal system of pretty much every pre-1800 monarchy. They are all examples of class distinction and discrimination, which happens everywhere. It just happens to be far more subtle in contemporary western societies.

Andy Symonds DIDN'T make a huge deal of the issue, he merely mentioned it and commented on it. If you read his first interviews on the subject, he actually was at pains to downplay the issue- I believe his quote was something along the lines of, "yeah, it was a bit disappointing, but I'm not the most serious bloke in the world, so it didn't affect me too much." The media definitely did run with it, though- and it wasn't just the Australian media.

I am all but convinced that the first occurrence of the "monkey chants" was NOT racially based, but rather just a generic zoological insult, comparable to calling someone a goose or a donkey or the like.

After the first instance and the publicity that followed, it became widely known that calling a black man a "monkey" drew racial connotations. The two instances that followed, therefore, were the result of segments of the crowd knowing that it would offend Symonds due to his racial background, and therefore WAS racially motivated.

As for the "myth" of the photographs of the "monkey" antics- unless cricinfo doctored a photo, then it was no myth. It was there, and for all I know still is. Again, FAR too lazy to find it and check.

Also, there seems to be a notion that the way to defend countrymen against examples of racism is to quote events where the country of the victim displayed racism. Racism isn't a defence for racism, it just reaffirms the fact that racists are everywhere, and that they are all just as bad as each other.

Mark Waugh was, in his usual laconic manner, addressing Symonds, and not the media. I watched the show, and the conversation that contained the mentioned quote.

Symonds attitude is completely irrelevant to his being racially insulted by a segment of the crowds. If you don't like what he says, then boo him until his ears bleed, or make fun of his Raggedy-Ann hairstyle, or his ridiculous looking zinc cream, or the fact that his test bowling average is higher than his batting average, or whatever. Don't attack the guy on the basis of his race- that just means that you lack imagination and wit, and are beneath contempt.

I'll add to this by saying that while I have no doubt that Sreesanth (and probably Harbhajan) is going to get an absolute pasting from the crowd if he tours Australia (which is, in my view, fine and dandy), if segments of the Australian crowd resort to racism, then they will be every bit as contemptible as those who have committed the same sin in India.

The BCCI are idiots for (initially) trying to sweep the issue under the carpet with their silly justifications. CA are neutered pillocks for not standing up for their player and (initially) going along with the BCCI's nonsense. As always, the ICC showed how irrelevent they are by doing and saying nothing aside from writing a few letters.

Strangely, I find the ICC's (and, in particular, Malcolm Speed's) anemic responses curiously comforting. I'm pretty sure that the ICC displaying any sort of leadership qualifies as a sign of the apocalypse at this point, and I'm sure no one wants that.



I hereby decide that I have owned everyone here. As someone who regularly surfs the internet AND who occasionally posts on message board (oh yes), I feel I am qualified as an expert on this and all other issues. Case closed.

You're all welcome.



Aww shucks. Thank you. Hopefully my writing ability properly conveys humour, too.

(HINT, HINT)

Look, I am not denying that some form of discrimination exists in all parts of the world. I have said that all along. But when I say or hear the word "racism", it is what happened in South Africa or USA or Australia that comes to my mind and that kind of stuff doesn't exist in India. And whatever example that sst provided, you can see they are mostly talking about Indians in the US and also about dating a foreigner. I can tell you that if my sister goes out with Tom Cruise or Will Smith, the reaction would be the same in my household about dating a FOREIGNER. It is not a case of racism, maybe some other "ism". And yes, us INdians do have the ingrained mentality of the fairer the skin of the person is, the better looking they are. Again, that is not what I have read under the term "racism"...

And that sort of casteism that exists in INdia, I am almost sure it doesn't exist in Australia. The class system and the caste system has differences, as you will yourself know. I know there are similarities but there are also differences, and that is why they give them different names.


And about Symonds downplaying that incident, from whatever I have read after the Mumbai match, he and Ponting were pretty much complaining about him beeing booed and that is what I meant when I said "they brought it on themselves".


And of course, I don't doubt for a second that the second and third instances (if they did happen), people would have known that it was a racist thing to say and they would have said it anyway because that is how the trouble mongers work. Again, just because they said racist stuff, doesn't mean they were racist. I am sure they would not ask some african-american to get up from their seat so that they can sit.


And I have made it more than clear that, no matter what the intention was, if certain words are emotionally affecting a player, the crowd should shut up. And if they don't, the authorities should evict them. I have said the same reg. Murali and I will now say the same reg. Symonds.


And no, I am not talking about THAT picture in cricinfo.

http://deccanherald.com/Content/Oct192007/sports2007101931389.asp


And no, I never said Symonds being racially taunted was his fault. I was talking about his comments regarding being booed. They mentioned something about what happened in the presentation ceremony and I watched it live on TV and it was obvious that he was heavily jeered and booed, which is what he deserved after the way he behaved, even though he was quite sublime as a player.


And finally, we have had 3 reported incidents in 3 matches and only once we have had any confirmation. BTW, can you link me to the picture in cricinfo you talked about? The one I saw was guys being ******ed out from the Mumbai stadium but I don't think that is the one you are talking about, no?


And yes, the BCCI are not going to admit it without too much proof and if you know anything about the BCCI, even with proof they are not going to admit it. CA won't do anything about it because they themselves have so many years of inaction to answer to and they don't want to spoil a mutually money making relationship with the BCCI. And the ICC will make claims (esp. Speed, who enjoys taking digs at the subcontinent) but nothing will be done because again, they won't want to do anything to aggravate the BCCI, which is their gold mine... Pathetic but that has been the case with cricket administration for many years, strange that anyone would really expect it to be any different now.



And BTW, congrats on the owning. That was very original indeed.

 

[honestbharani]

'It didn't worry me'.

Well of course it didn't because you are white.

If Andrew Symonds says he is offended by it, then it is offensive, end of really.

and somehow, when the same is said about Murali, he is TOO precious????????????

 

[honestbharani]

can you accuse black african country like kenya etc of racism?? They don't want the whites there but its not because of racism. India is similarly a 'colored' country and hence not racist theoretically.


The fans targetted Symonds for 3 reasons
-he was the biggest sledger(or percieved to be) in the Aussie team(during this series).
-he was accessible to them(fielding near the boundaries)
-they wanted to get at him for sledging the indian team.

Ponting/Clarke would have been targeted too had they been accessible. Lee and Gilchrist are popular with the Indians because of all the Ads that they do on the Indian channels so they would not be sledged by the crowds.


That is hearsay, India has a regular football league and many africans play in the club sides for the last 30 odd years. Not one incident of racism has been reported during any of the football matches.


You have absolutely no idea what casteism is, its discussion is beyond the scope of this forum. Color bias is not that black people suck but darker skinned indians are not as attractive and fairer skinned indians, its about the concept of beauty nothing beyond that. Besides how can it be racism when its the same race that the bias is against??!!

hey, don't ask questions...... He can only pop up and say that he has "owned" someone and that someone has "lost"....

 

[sirdj]

I am all but convinced that the first occurrence of the "monkey chants" was NOT racially based, but rather just a generic zoological insult, comparable to calling someone a goose or a donkey or the like.

After the first instance and the publicity that followed, it became widely known that calling a black man a "monkey" drew racial connotations. The two instances that followed, therefore, were the result of segments of the crowd knowing that it would offend Symonds due to his racial background, and therefore WAS racially motivated.

Well I dont think the second instance was racism either, for it to be racism the offender has to believe in the black man = monkey equation. I think it was merely that they thaught that they had found something that got under his skin. Had they felt that Symonds would get irritated by calling him a Chicken they would have done chicken noises etc, its as simple as that.

 

[pup11]

Discrimination of any kind is just not acceptable in sports whether its racist or of any other kind, a lot of things might be acceptable in different societies but a player should never be taunted by any of those ridiculous antics that exist in a particular society.
In Symonds's case such ridiculous taunts can hurt him and give a racist angle to the taunts because of the fact that he isn't white, if the crowd wants to have fun then i am all for it but while having fun they should make sure they don't hurt somebody's feelings while doing so.

 

[sirdj]

Discrimination of any kind is just not acceptable in sports whether its racist or of any other kind, a lot of things might be acceptable in different societies but a player should never be taunted by any of those ridiculous antics that exist in a particular society.
In Symonds's case such ridiculous taunts can hurt him and give a racist angle to the taunts because of the fact that he isn't white, if the crowd wants to have fun then i am all for it but while having fun they should make sure they don't hurt somebody's feelings while doing so.

Err........ what about the feelings of the Indian players who are sledged??!! Once you open the door to insults you cant object to what all goes through. All this talk from Ponting about "knowing what the line in the sand is", is rubbish. If you throw the first punch you cant set the limit on what is going to be thrown back at you.

 

[honestbharani]

Discrimination of any kind is just not acceptable in sports whether its racist or of any other kind, a lot of things might be acceptable in different societies but a player should never be taunted by any of those ridiculous antics that exist in a particular society.
In Symonds's case such ridiculous taunts can hurt him and give a racist angle to the taunts because of the fact that he isn't white, if the crowd wants to have fun then i am all for it but while having fun they should make sure they don't hurt somebody's feelings while doing so.

And I completely agree with that. IF it is an issue which hurts him, it shouldn't be said. Full stop. And yet it is funny that quite a few who have this opinion on this issue, seem to think otherwise w.r.t Murali.

 

[honestbharani]

Err........ what about the feelings of the Indian players who are sledged??!! Once you open the door to insults you cant object to what all goes through. All this talk from Ponting about "knowing what the line in the sand is", is rubbish. If you throw the first punch you cant set the limit on what is going to be thrown back at you.

To an extent, that is understandable. But that doesn't mean all this kinds of abuse is justifiable. No matter how big the provocation is, we ourselves shouldn't cross certain limits. Otherwise, we are to be blamed just as much as the initiator.

 

[sirdj]

No matter how big the provocation is, we ourselves shouldn't cross certain limits. Otherwise, we are to be blamed just as much as the initiator.

While your thoughts are good but they are misplaced in today's world. The modern world constantly teaches that there is no place for high morality. Might is right and good guys always finish last. The modern world is all about winning. And winners decide on how history is depicted.

 

[Laurrz]

why was timmy banned?

 

[Bracken]

Look, I am not denying that some form of discrimination exists in all parts of the world. I have said that all along. But when I say or hear the word "racism", it is what happened in South Africa or USA or Australia that comes to my mind and that kind of stuff doesn't exist in India. And whatever example that sst provided, you can see they are mostly talking about Indians in the US and also about dating a foreigner. I can tell you that if my sister goes out with Tom Cruise or Will Smith, the reaction would be the same in my household about dating a FOREIGNER. It is not a case of racism, maybe some other "ism". And yes, us INdians do have the ingrained mentality of the fairer the skin of the person is, the better looking they are. Again, that is not what I have read under the term "racism"...

Then the discussion is a question of definition. Racism is, at it's most simple, viewing a difference on the basis of a person's race, which absolutely occurs in every society. Racism (much like the whole concept of "race") is a fluid idea, rather than a definitive one. The word may have had an added perjorative connotation added in some societies, but it exists as a part of the human race.

I would certainly concede that there has never been mass racial lynchings or anything of the sort in India, but that doesn't preclude the existence of racism completely. In different societies it exists in different forms and in different magnitudes- but it still exists.

And that sort of casteism that exists in INdia, I am almost sure it doesn't exist in Australia. The class system and the caste system has differences, as you will yourself know. I know there are similarities but there are also differences, and that is why they give them different names.

The caste system is merely a more ingrained, documented and regimented form of classism. They are, at their core, the same basic idea.

For some reason, humanity seems to need to find a way to classify each other and differentiate between each other. Sometimes this is closer to the surface than in other cases, but the basic need is the same. Frankly, my sociological view is that classism and racism (as well as the majority of other points of discrimination that different societies have found throughout history) come from the same base instinct, and thus are directly comparable.

And about Symonds downplaying that incident, from whatever I have read after the Mumbai match, he and Ponting were pretty much complaining about him beeing booed and that is what I meant when I said "they brought it on themselves".

I haven't seen any report of Ponting or Symonds complaining about being booed- the only complaints that I have seen have concerned the racial issue. I am certainly not doubting you, but I haven't seen those reports myself. If they did complain about being booed, then they are being far too precious. Visiting teams (and often the home teams t'boot) get booed- that is a reality that they have to face.

And of course, I don't doubt for a second that the second and third instances (if they did happen), people would have known that it was a racist thing to say and they would have said it anyway because that is how the trouble mongers work. Again, just because they said racist stuff, doesn't mean they were racist. I am sure they would not ask some african-american to get up from their seat so that they can sit.

Again, it is a matter of degree. Saying racist things is racist. It may not be on the same scale as hanging a black man from a tree, but it is still racist.

And I have made it more than clear that, no matter what the intention was, if certain words are emotionally affecting a player, the crowd should shut up. And if they don't, the authorities should evict them. I have said the same reg. Murali and I will now say the same reg. Symonds.

Racial taunting is far more heinous than drunkards yelling "no ball". One is abhorrent, one is not. To compare the two (and, if you are not talking about the "no ball" chants, then I apologise) is disingenuous.

And no, I am not talking about THAT picture in cricinfo.

I read the story that you linked to, and I stand by my first comment regarding the BCCI. I agree that the first case was probably not racist, but the second two instances certainly were.

And no, I never said Symonds being racially taunted was his fault. I was talking about his comments regarding being booed. They mentioned something about what happened in the presentation ceremony and I watched it live on TV and it was obvious that he was heavily jeered and booed, which is what he deserved after the way he behaved, even though he was quite sublime as a player.

I should have made it clear in my first post, but I certainly wasn't attributing every point toward you- I was commenting on different points in the thread made by various posters. I should have attributed quotes, but as I said I am phenomenonally lazy, particularly when it comes to message board posting. My apologies if you thought I was directing all of that at you personally.

And finally, we have had 3 reported incidents in 3 matches and only once we have had any confirmation. BTW, can you link me to the picture in cricinfo you talked about? The one I saw was guys being ******ed out from the Mumbai stadium but I don't think that is the one you are talking about, no?

Ummm. I'll try to find it. No promises, though, as I hate searching for stuff on the internet when I'm not getting paid for it (lord knows I do enough of it when I am getting paid). If I find it in my travels, I'll be sure to post it. Sorry to be so vague- now you know why I rarely post.

The photo was a still of a section of the crowd, with a few people scratching their underarms (in the typical "monkey" pose). It was pretty obvious what they were doing. I believe the photo was taken in Mumbai.

And yes, the BCCI are not going to admit it without too much proof and if you know anything about the BCCI, even with proof they are not going to admit it. CA won't do anything about it because they themselves have so many years of inaction to answer to and they don't want to spoil a mutually money making relationship with the BCCI. And the ICC will make claims (esp. Speed, who enjoys taking digs at the subcontinent) but nothing will be done because again, they won't want to do anything to aggravate the BCCI, which is their gold mine... Pathetic but that has been the case with cricket administration for many years, strange that anyone would really expect it to be any different now.

Speed is a knob. He likes taking shots at EVERYBODY. I think it makes him feel potent.

I agree totally, by the way. Cricket administration has been incredibly poor for a long time, and I certainly don't expect any better. Low expectations don't mean that they aren't worthy of criticism, though.

And BTW, congrats on the owning. That was very original indeed.

I think it sums up the collective mentality of the internet quite succinctly, no?

Anyway, good show. I enjoy discussing things with reasonable people, as you obviously are.

 

[biased indian]

i would just say this.......

he bought it up on himself more than any one and sreesnath can get the same

 

[James]

All the posts surrounding the troll have been deleted

 

[SJS]

All the posts surrounding the troll have been deleted

This is one banning that should be supported by all. He was quite something.

 

[Vic_89]

why was timmy banned?

Yes i would also like this question to be answered properly...as far i have seen, some people are just too soft and dont seem to be able to handle the truth.