Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Johnners]

Maybe because Latif is a Pakistani?
(And I am only partly joking too)

Seriously though, its difficult to say. I dont remember the incident all that well, but was there any other evidence besides the word of Gilly that Latif has said that? Was it, for example, corroborated by the umpires or picked up by a stump mic?

Also, I think this whole incident is cumulative and a combination of various factors. Namely, the umpiring errors that have disproportionately favoured one side over another; the doubts over Australian fielding and the pre-series agreement between Ponting and Kumble, and of course the race incident betweem Symond and Harbhajan.

Taken isolation, any of these incidents would have probably been easily circumvented or resolved. But taken together they have tended to snowball which is making this akin to an avalanche that will either not be resolved, or will irredeemably poison the rest of the tour.

That still doesn't answer my question though. People are only calling the Aust. team hypocritical now, when they have in fact reported alleged racial abuse in the past. Isn't that a little ridiculous from those who are criticising them, as they're basically saying "Oh it was OK then, but it's not OK this time around".

If indeed there was no-one criticising them for it in '03, imo it makes them look stupid for doing it now.

 

[JBH001]

True. It depends on what is usually said on the field of play.

As far as I know, players do not usually resort to racial abuse these days (or in the recent past, or even in the past for that matter). Although I welcome correction on this.

As to why now, difficult to say. Sometimes issues wait for their right time before they come alive. This may be the time for the issue of racial taunts in cricket.

See it as something that has been slowly brewing for a while, to only come to the boil at the present time.

 

[Evermind]

Would it be possible for the mods to include the first and the last letters of censored words, instead of all *s? That way, we can differentiate between **** and **** and ****+ - the many colourful 4-letter insults, as they're somewhat important in sledging discussions.

+ if you couldn't tell which word was which, it proves my point.

 

[Stu274]

I was under the impression that Harbajhan neven denied saying it he simply claimed he didnt mean it was racist? Is this not correct?
Coz if so after the happenings in India already I cant see how he can say such a thing?

 

[silentstriker]

I was under the impression that Harbajhan neven denied saying it he simply claimed he didnt mean it was racist? Is this not correct?
Coz if so after the happenings in India already I cant see how he can say such a thing?

No, I believe he denied saying it.

 

[Richard]

Would it be possible for the mods to include the first and the last letters of censored words, instead of all *s? That way, we can differentiate between **** and **** and ****+ - the many colourful 4-letter insults, as they're somewhat important in sledging discussions.

+ if you couldn't tell which word was which, it proves my point.

The whole point of the filter is that people don't know what's being said, that's why leaving one letter is construed as avoiding the filter.

 

[vic_orthdox]

From memory, Gilchrist told the umpire straight away that he was called a "white ****", and Latif denied it straight off the bat. Was one man's word against the other, don't believe anyone else heard the exchange, thus Latif was cleared.

Reminds me of an incident that Allan Border recounts in his autobiography, where he copped a ball to the body from Joel Garner, and said "You big bastard" under his breath. Desmond Haynes was under the lid, and thought he said "You black bastard", and Joel started bouncing the buggery out of Border. Was all sorted out after the game, IIRC.

 

[Richard]

There's been a fair few instances along the lines of said Garner-Border instance TBH. Almost inevitable, unfortunately.

 

[silentstriker]

From memory, Gilchrist told the umpire straight away that he was called a "white ****", and Latif denied it straight off the bat. Was one man's word against the other, don't believe anyone else heard the exchange, thus Latif was cleared.

Reminds me of an incident that Allan Border recounts in his autobiography, where he copped a ball to the body from Joel Garner, and said "You big bastard" under his breath. Desmond Haynes was under the lid, and thought he said "You black bastard", and Joel started bouncing the buggery out of Border. Was all sorted out after the game, IIRC.

I liked it then. A couple of beamers to the face would sort anything out tbh.

 

[howardj]

This brilliant piece, from Gideon Haigh, sums up my view on the matter - the Australian's are precious when they want to be:

Racism is serious. Racism is about the denial of another person's essential humanity on the basis of their skin and their culture. Racism is about embedded prejudices, institutionalised discrimination, real economic and social deprivation.

Racism is South Africa under apartheid - on which, say it softly, Australia was the last cricket country to lower the boom. Racism is Robert Mugabe - against whose country the Australian cricket team would seemingly have been happy to play had it not been for the Federal Government.
To say, then, that one cricketer calling another a monkey on a cricket field is racism is to define the idea frivolously. Was Symonds belittled? Was he hurt? Was he disadvantaged?

Monkey, monkey

Curiously, when a few score Indians made monkey noises directed at Symonds at Vadodara last October, he went out of his way to state that he had not made any complaint, and affected not to care.

"I'm not the most deadly serious bloke," he said. "Life goes on."

Yet somehow Harbhajan's emission is now the gravest of offences and befitting of the severest sanction. Regrettably, the Australian complaint smacks of cricketers who in the process of scaling great heights of excellence have sealed themselves off from reality.

It also smacks of Australian players just a bit peeved about always being seen as the bad guys, who want the world to know that they, poor things, get taunted too. There is a sort of wounded self-righteousness to captain Ricky Ponting's comments in the aftermath of the Sydney Test that recalls those mealy-mouthed defences of Australian sledging of the recent past: other teams do it but they don't get criticised because we're more honest and they play the beastly trick of doing it in Hindi and Urdu.

Snitches

For decades Australian cricketers have been steadfast in maintaining the principle that what happens on the field stays on the field, and regarded as snitches those opponents, such as South Africa's Graeme Smith and Sri Lanka's Arjuna Ranatunga, who abrogated it.

Which is fine. Even if you haven't always agreed with it as a philosophy, it has at least been understandable and unambiguous, and in that sense worthy of respect.

The common sense of the principle is shown up by this incident. Because when you abandon it, as Ponting has, you incite others to take grievances beyond the boundary, as the Indians are doing by trumping up their tit-for-tat charge against Brad Hogg.

linky: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23021699-5007146,00.html

 

[Son Of Coco]

This brilliant piece, from Gideon Haigh, sums up my view on the matter - the Australian's are precious when they want to be:

Racism is serious. Racism is about the denial of another person's essential humanity on the basis of their skin and their culture. Racism is about embedded prejudices, institutionalised discrimination, real economic and social deprivation.

Racism is South Africa under apartheid - on which, say it softly, Australia was the last cricket country to lower the boom. Racism is Robert Mugabe - against whose country the Australian cricket team would seemingly have been happy to play had it not been for the Federal Government.
To say, then, that one cricketer calling another a monkey on a cricket field is racism is to define the idea frivolously. Was Symonds belittled? Was he hurt? Was he disadvantaged?

Monkey, monkey

Curiously, when a few score Indians made monkey noises directed at Symonds at Vadodara last October, he went out of his way to state that he had not made any complaint, and affected not to care.

"I'm not the most deadly serious bloke," he said. "Life goes on."

Yet somehow Harbhajan's emission is now the gravest of offences and befitting of the severest sanction. Regrettably, the Australian complaint smacks of cricketers who in the process of scaling great heights of excellence have sealed themselves off from reality.

It also smacks of Australian players just a bit peeved about always being seen as the bad guys, who want the world to know that they, poor things, get taunted too. There is a sort of wounded self-righteousness to captain Ricky Ponting's comments in the aftermath of the Sydney Test that recalls those mealy-mouthed defences of Australian sledging of the recent past: other teams do it but they don't get criticised because we're more honest and they play the beastly trick of doing it in Hindi and Urdu.

Snitches

For decades Australian cricketers have been steadfast in maintaining the principle that what happens on the field stays on the field, and regarded as snitches those opponents, such as South Africa's Graeme Smith and Sri Lanka's Arjuna Ranatunga, who abrogated it.

Which is fine. Even if you haven't always agreed with it as a philosophy, it has at least been understandable and unambiguous, and in that sense worthy of respect.

The common sense of the principle is shown up by this incident. Because when you abandon it, as Ponting has, you incite others to take grievances beyond the boundary, as the Indians are doing by trumping up their tit-for-tat charge against Brad Hogg.

linky: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23021699-5007146,00.html

At what point do you draw the line though? Do we have a debate on what is or isn't racist in a certain country or at a certain time or do we come down hard on anything that is perceived as such? If Harbajhan made the remark should he have known it was considered offensive given the result in India or do we assume he's stupid? I heard Symonds make those remarks the other day in an interview, perhaps he was simply stating that it's not something he dwells on. He was obviously disappointed with the way the BCCI handled things in India.

Should racism be overlooked in the 'what happens on the field stays on the field' mantra? This is perhaps the most idiotic idea to come out of the whole debate in my opinion...if I stand at first slip all day racially abusing someone am I then allowed to say 'look mate, what happens on the field stays on the field' and get away with it?

As far as Symonds being belittled...I'd say calling him a monkey certainly isn't flattering him. Was he hurt? Only he could tell you that. Was he disadvantaged? Probably not, but I think you'll find all three don't have to apply at the same time for th comment to be racist. How do you reckon you'd go if you ran into Symonds (or another person of colour) at the local pub and started calling them 'monkey'? I don't think you'd be able to pass it off as being inoffensive where you come from.


Note: I realise you're not Gideon Haigh...

 

[silentstriker]

At what point do you draw the line though? Do we have a debate on what is or isn't racist in a certain country or at a certain time or do we come down hard on anything that is perceived as such? If Harbajhan made the remark should he have known it was considered offensive given the result in India or do we assume he's stupid? I heard Symonds make those remarks the other day in an interview, perhaps he was simply stating that it's not something he dwells on. He was obviously disappointed with the way the BCCI handled things in India.

Should racism be overlooked in the 'what happens on the field stays on the field' mantra? This is perhaps the most idiotic idea to come out of the whole debate in my opinion...if I stand at first slip all day racially abusing someone am I then allowed to say 'look mate, what happens on the field stays on the field' and get away with it?

As far as Symonds being belittled...I'd say calling him a monkey certainly isn't flattering him. Was he hurt? Only he could tell you that. Was he disadvantaged? Probably not, but I think you'll find all three don't have to apply at the same time for th comment to be racist. How do you reckon you'd go if you ran into Symonds (or another person of colour) at the local pub and started calling them 'monkey'? I don't think you'd be able to pass it off as being inoffensive where you come from.


Note: I realise you're not Gideon Haigh...

The broader question being who decides what is offensive to whom? I agree, racism has no place and anyone who gives out racist abuse should be banned.

But then what if I say that my culture views the word '****' or 'bastard' as a demeaning word that denies 'person's essential humanity'? I am not sure if the line is clear.

Again, ban Harbhajan if he said it. I've no time for it. But going forward, I am asking the question in the broader sense about what should be legalized and what should be a bannable offense? Surely, monkey should and will be out of bounds, but I can't find fault in the argument that then 'bastard' and others should be too.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The broader question being who decides what is offensive to whom? I agree, racism has no place and anyone who gives out racist abuse should be banned.

But then what if I say that my culture views the word '****' or 'bastard' as a demeaning word that denies 'person's essential humanity'? I am not sure if the line is clear.

Again, ban Harbhajan if he said it. I've no time for it. But going forward, I am asking the question in the broader sense about what should be legalized and what should be a bannable offense? Surely, monkey should and will be out of bounds, but I can't find fault in the argument that then 'bastard' and others should be too.

That's a good point, maybe they could just ban talking

Given every country's wide use of it...I'm assuming the f-word will make the cut.

 

[funnygirl]

what about a word like ''rotten pig '' ,is that a racist word .Personally i found that word more ugly and offensive than the word ''Monkey ''.

 

[silentstriker]

what about a word like ''rotten pig '' ,is that a racist word .Personally i found that word more ugly and offensive than the word ''Monkey ''.

But you're not black. The word monkey is undeniably racist, and if you're rallying against it, you're wrong. It's not an opinion.

You're wrong. Just saying. You have only to spend five minutes reading some history to figure that out.

 

[silentstriker]

But you're not black. The word monkey is undeniably racist, and if you're rallying against it, you're wrong. It's not an opinion.

You're wrong. Just saying. You have only to spend five minutes reading some history to figure that out.

For any remaining doubters, history was full of cartoons like this (and this one is mordern):

Africans (under US laws) were consider 3/5th human and considered like 'monkeys' of subhuman intelligence. Most racist cartoons of the past depict africans as monkey-like or with ape-like demeanor. It literally boggles my mind how anyone can think that the word is not racist.

It's not an opinion here, its a well established historical fact.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

It's not an opinion here, its a well established historical fact.

If it doesn't mess with the 'family forum' sales pitch, could you translate the caption SS?

 

[JBH001]

Thats an Arabic cartoon is it not, SS?

Depicting Condoleeza Rice carrying a Monkey inside of her?

 

[jeevan]

But you're not black. The word monkey is undeniably racist, and if you're rallying against it, you're wrong. It's not an opinion.

You're wrong. Just saying. You have only to spend five minutes reading some history to figure that out.

Come off it, now. Monkey is racist in a specific cultural context (which all playing in this particular series were made aware of, for sure).

Other than that, for Indians in particular there really is no taboo associated with that word. Forget the mythological references, the children's organization run parallel to the Indian National Congress during the civil disobedience movement was called the "Vanar Sena" - army of monkeys. Every Indian kid has learnt that in history at school.

Here in the US, umpteen times there have been George Bush caricatures with simian features in American publications. There's even a whole website on it: http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Did my 5 minute (actually 10 minute) search and:

- There appears to be an Australian resort thinge called Monkey Mia partly owned by an aboriginal businesses group.
- See http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=54114
for an uncharged discussion on the topic.
- It definitely makes the slurs database, interestingly a variant also refers to Indians.
http://www.rsdb.org/


edit: And how did I forget the "code monkey" usage.

 

[honestbharani]

At what point do you draw the line though? Do we have a debate on what is or isn't racist in a certain country or at a certain time or do we come down hard on anything that is perceived as such? If Harbajhan made the remark should he have known it was considered offensive given the result in India or do we assume he's stupid? I heard Symonds make those remarks the other day in an interview, perhaps he was simply stating that it's not something he dwells on. He was obviously disappointed with the way the BCCI handled things in India.

Should racism be overlooked in the 'what happens on the field stays on the field' mantra? This is perhaps the most idiotic idea to come out of the whole debate in my opinion...if I stand at first slip all day racially abusing someone am I then allowed to say 'look mate, what happens on the field stays on the field' and get away with it?

As far as Symonds being belittled...I'd say calling him a monkey certainly isn't flattering him. Was he hurt? Only he could tell you that. Was he disadvantaged? Probably not, but I think you'll find all three don't have to apply at the same time for th comment to be racist. How do you reckon you'd go if you ran into Symonds (or another person of colour) at the local pub and started calling them 'monkey'? I don't think you'd be able to pass it off as being inoffensive where you come from.


Note: I realise you're not Gideon Haigh...

AT what point do you draw the line???


That is precisely the question that needs to be answered. As I pointed out in the official thread, the word monkey is tossed around in a lot of situations and it is almost common practice to call ur mates a "monkey" in a jovial way and it is also used as a soft insult... Just like the word "bastard" in Australia, at least to my understanding.


So where exactly CAN one draw the line? Racism is a big issue in most western nations and therefore it is a big issue in world sports, but it was never a big issue in India. Maybe there was a bit of "soft-racism" as somone put it back when the Vadodara issue came up, but we never had the real hard faced racism in India. So, for Indians, being called by personal abuses may be just as bad or even worse than a racist taunt.... So where can one draw the line?