Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[silentstriker]

Personally, I still think he said 'monkey', and meant it. But the Australians didn't seem to help themselves in the hearing.

 

[Burgey]

Clarke's interesting - but at least his not agreeing with what Hayden and Symonds said makes me feel beter about it - if all three went in with exactly the same words, it would give a bit of kudos to the "they made it all up to get him out of the series" nutbags.

 

[Burgey]

Burgey, regarding Tendulkar:

Thanks SS. That's itstl. I wonder why that didn't come out after the Proctor hearing? Not asking cynically, I'm just wondering.

Well, I just hope he gave his evidence consistently at both hearings, coz he's too fine a player to have his cred trashed all over some idiot second rater like Harbhajan. AS far as Sachin goes, I'm like Mulder "I want to believe" .

Bloody terrible way to run the initial hearing imo - puts Proctor, or any referee in an impossible position.

 

[Burgey]

Personally, I still think he said 'monkey', and meant it. But the Australians didn't seem to help themselves in the hearing.

Don't think they were in a position to tbh. There are several reports here of players who do not want to be IDed saying that they're filthy on the way it turned out, and the way CA failed to back them up.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally, I still think he said 'monkey', and meant it. But the Australians didn't seem to help themselves in the hearing.

This is the way hearings like this go. Most people, even when telling the truth, sound dubious when the exact facts are exposed. As Burgey said, though, at least this shows the Aussie stories weren't in lock-step to oust Harbhajan from the series and thus not giving fodder for the crazies.

 

[silentstriker]

This is the way hearings like this go. Most people, even when telling the truth, sound dubious when the exact facts are exposed. As Burgey said, though, at least this shows the Aussie stories weren't in lock-step to oust Harbhajan from the series and thus not giving fodder for the crazies.

The Clarke accounts sounds very fishy to me, personally. I can definitely believe the other ones probably heard it, but Clarke might have just been following them and saying he heard something....and that ended up hurting their case more than anything else. Which wouldn't be out of character for him anyway.

 

[Bracken]

This is the way hearings like this go. Most people, even when telling the truth, sound dubious when the exact facts are exposed. As Burgey said, though, at least this shows the Aussie stories weren't in lock-step to oust Harbhajan from the series and thus not giving fodder for the crazies.

Heh. I admire your optimism.

 

[silentstriker]

"I have reviewed the television evidence of what occurred. It is clear that Mr Lee bowled an excellent yorker to Mr Singh who was fortunate to play the ball to fine leg. As he passed Mr Lee while completing a single Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside. Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of "well bowled", Justice Hansen said in his judgement.

"Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own team mates. In the transcript he stated: "Mr Manohar: You had any objection to that patting on the back? Mr Symonds: Did I have an objection to it - my objection was that a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection."

If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.

Harbhajan probably lied, Clarke probably lied, and Symonds didn't help himself either. Jesus, is no one capable of intelligence anymore?

 

[sirdj]

Of course you correct a 5 year old, but do you mean to tell me that if a grown man called another man a ****** on the sporting field that he should just be "corrected"?

Nope he should be beaten up.

What a vapid sop, that one person's colour determines whether their view on racism carries more weight than another's. Is that the kind of chip which Indian supporters carry around on their shoulders, or is it exclusive to your good self?

I dont know about Indian supporter's as I do not really support the team. That is just my personal opinion.

Be like me saying your views on cricket as an Indian supporter ought not be given the gravitas of an Australian's until India's record against Australia gets to about 50-50 in their test match clashes.

The reason why non-coloured opinion on racism is invalid is because 99% of racism is directed towards coloured people. The opinion of someone the same race as the Oppressor on Oppression is invalid.

I'll back myself not to get bounced off the forum mate, but that's a matter for others and not me. So long as whatever word is used is okay for Indians, that'll be fine by you. BTW, still haven't responded to the bastard word, have you?

Respond to 'bastard'?? why?? I have never alleged it to be a racial slur?? can you please read my posts before accusing me of things I have never said.

 

[sirdj]

Sorry to keep quoting this fella, but the hits really do keep on coming....


Yeah, Andrew Symonds big, black size 13 boot. He's black mate - ffs, buy a ****ing colour tv!!!

So?? I never claimed that he was chinese??

 

[sirdj]

Sorry, this is getting embarrassing, in that article, as you can see from the headline, it is a list of incidents of racial vilification incidents against African Americans on campus, as exposed in an African American publication. Now you have the cheek to say that everything there is racist besides Monkey despite them listing it as an example in an article on racism?

Yes it is embarrassing that you keep misinterpreting what I have said.

I said that once you start with the word '******' its irrelevant what you say or don't say afterwords, the entire conversation is racist.

Then I proposed an entirely different scenario. Can you please read my post properly before responding.

 

[aussie_26]

I just heard someone make a very good point in relation to India flexing its muscle and that India's power is a bit overrated.

India might make 70% of the world total revenue but tell me how much money will they make if they have know one to play ?

 

[pasag]

Yes it is embarrassing that you keep misinterpreting what I have said.

I said that once you start with the word '******' its irrelevant what you say or don't say afterwords, the entire conversation is racist.

Then I proposed an entirely different scenario. Can you please read my post properly before responding.

Really stretching there mate, it's pretty clear that those words were intended by the perpetrators as racists comments and they were recognised as such and given as an example in the article. Quite frankly your responses here lack logic as do all the other so called rebuttals to all the other instances I've provided. The claim you seem to be making shows zero social awareness and that you more or less have your head in the sand or are being completely facetious.

 

[sirdj]

What about this bloke, who you presumably now think isn't black?

Never said Symonds isn't black. What I have said is that Symonds view on whether monkey is racist can't be really taken as the final word. Its his view, The indians who are coloured have a view too which is relevent too, Michael Holding who is coloured has a view which is relevent too.

Ooh, this from the bloke who, several pages ago told me not to make posts talking about the reactions you'd get from black people in Harlem if you called them "monkey". You sure you're not with the BCCI or CA? Your willingness to depart from anything like a consistently principled position in ths argument would suggest you may well be.

Fine I agree with you here. Lets not talk about reactions from black people in Harlem.

Behold Andrew Symonds - THE GREAT REPRESSOR!!
For the 448th time, get it into your fairly non-thin skull - Andrew Symonds is a black bloke. He complained about being racially abused by another bloke who he said used a term which that bloke had been told by Symonds was racially offensive to him. I really find it incomprehensible that you just seem to ignore that fact. Oh, and of course you manage to overlook the fact that the BCCI agreed to the anti-racism stance in the first place, so it's hardly a case of the white guys just trying to keep down the oppressed coloureds - it was a system agreed to by all the countries in the ICC.

And get through your unpenetrable skull that I was talking about non-coloured people trying to make up what racism is..........I was not talking about Andrew Symonds.
Did you really think that I am of the view that Symonds is not coloured?? what was that fabulous assumption based on?? Have even been reading what I write? or you're too busy jumping to conclusions.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Yes it is embarrassing that you keep misinterpreting what I have said.

I said that once you start with the word '******' its irrelevant what you say or don't say afterwords, the entire conversation is racist.

Then I proposed an entirely different scenario. Can you please read my post properly before responding.

You're completely ignoring what he's said to draw him back to your familiar territory - which has assumed broken record status. Why don't you address the point he's made, and the pertinent point at hand, which is the status of "monkey"'s connotation in popular society?

Frankly, this kind of retreat from the topic is tantamount to trolling.

Nice avatar, btw. Probably handy the other wise monkeys are absent, 'cause it's doubtful they'd want to speak or hear what you're spewing.

 

[honestbharani]

The Clarke accounts sounds very fishy to me, personally. I can definitely believe the other ones probably heard it, but Clarke might have just been following them and saying he heard something....and that ended up hurting their case more than anything else. Which wouldn't be out of character for him anyway.

The way he appeals for catches, I don't think anyone should ever really trust him anymore. He is just as bad as Dhoni in that respect....


And yes, it is very fishy that he says he never heard anything that Symonds said but only the things that Bhajji said.


Anyways, there never really was any evidence to convict Bhajji of racism and that is exactly what has transpired. Juz don't understand what the big fuss is from the Aussies about it. The same Aussies who now say that the players' words has to carry weight never gave it much thought when Gayle told that Clarke incited him in the CT in 2006... Funny how things change when it is not the person from your camp.....

 

[sirdj]

Really stretching there mate, it's pretty clear that those words were intended by the perpetrators as racists comments and they were recognised as such and given as an example in the article. Quite frankly your responses here lack logic as do all the other so called rebuttals to all the other instances I've provided. The claim you seem to be making shows zero social awareness and that you more or less have your head in the sand or are being completely facetious.

Looks like you need to re-read what my earlier post was, so here it is -

After the word '******' was used would it really matter what else was said along with it??
Even if you say 'God' after the word '******' it does not undo the racial slur.

But lets say the altercation happened slightly differently. Lets say that they traded a whole lot of non racial abuses like MF etc etc and one of the abuses was ' big monkey'. Would that make it a racial abuse??

Now can you see that I gave you another hypothetical scenario, which was totally different from the first one?

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, you're probably right. Still if the crowds throw that racist (or is it? not according to some) monkey crap at Symonds or do their usual mindles effigy rubbish, why wouldn't the players pull the pin?

I'm now beginning to understand the hatred which some Indian supporters here have expressed for some Aussie players, coz frankly I feel it towards Indian cricket, the BCCI and the holier than thou Indian team. I'd hoped not to feel that way, to be above that sort of thing, but it's very, very difficult. I really liked players like Tendulkar and Kumble especially (Ganguly was always an over-rated putz), but about now V V S is the only bloke I'd like to watch. Tendulkar's still a great player I guess, but Kumble lost me with the "spirit of cricket" thing combined with my viewing of that video of his abusing Yousuf in the recent Pakistan series. The man's a cast iron hypocrite imo.

Frankly, right now I wouldn't care if we didn't play India, and I don't want to feel that way because I'm very bitter about this whole episode - not the verdict, but how it was arrived at and the manner in which the BCCI made their threats about cancelling tours and the like.

And, I really don't want to feel this way about India, coz every 15-20 years they actually do produce a batsman who hits it when it bounces above waist height, or a bowler who doesn't go to water on a pitch which isn't a dust bowl on day one (see, I am bitter). But, there's always this consistent theme there in recent times - every loss, there's an excuse or temper tantrum - get rid of an umpire; blame the other side for the way they play the game; don't acknowledge we got outplayed or capitulated on day 5 in Sydney; if our mediocre offie gets suspended we'll go home; oh so-and-so copped a shocker, never mind the other 9 of us didn't last 4 hours.

Then of course, when the one win in however many tests or series comes along, it's the dawning of a new era. It never has been so far - hopefully the BCCI will continue to be India's only dominant part of the game, and they'll fail on the field. I really hope that happens now, and I didn't before. I think I'd even go for England over India now, and that's saying something.

Then again, it's late and I'll probably feel a whole lot different in the morning. Especially the part about England .

take it easy with the hypocrites there... Kumble hasn't appealed for bump ball catches yet......



And yes, the Aussies aren't much better either. There is no need to mention what India have or have not done in the sport, we still are the oxygen for the bloody sport, so go and spout out your nonsense about India not doing well somewhere else.


You talk about it as though racism is foreign in Australia... Quite funny that it should be said because believe me, it is a lot more foreign in India than it is in Australia. And last of all, where the hell is the bloody proof that Bhajji did say something racist? Give that and we will have something to talk about... Of course, Indians would be offended when they branded something they were not... Didn't Smith react like hell when he was termed to have said something "racist"? It is a sensitive issue and people don't like to branded as so and so when it comes to such issues. The Indians were hurt because Bhajji says he didn't say it (and his word is as acceptable to me as Hayden's, Symonds' and Clarke's and Ponting's are) and the Indians see that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise and yet he is penalized. So they say that if the hearing continues in what they believe to be a biased manner, they will walk out... Why can't they do that? Because few Aussies can't accept that they could be wrong?????????

 

[stephen]

The reason why non-coloured opinion on racism is invalid is because 99% of racism is directed towards coloured people. The opinion of someone the same race as the Oppressor on Oppression is invalid.

You really have something wired wrong in your brain don't you.

Do you even understand the terminology?

Do you even understand what racism is?

This is what racism is (from the dictionary):

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Your statements very strongly imply that you believe that inherent differences between white and black people (i.e. that white people were born white) determine our individual ability to determine what racism is. They also imply that your race, or in fact any non-white race, is superior in their ability to define racism and has the right to rule any "what is racism" debate.

You are displaying everything that is wrong with the victim mentality, and really need to gain an education on this matter.

From another source:

the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

You are clearly prejudiced against white people, believing coloured people to be intrinsically superior to white people at making this judgement.

 

[pasag]

Anyways, there never really was any evidence to convict Bhajji of racism and that is exactly what has transpired. Juz don't understand what the big fuss is from the Aussies about it. The same Aussies who now say that the players' words has to carry weight never gave it much thought when Gayle told that Clarke incited him in the CT in 2006... Funny how things change when it is not the person from your camp.....

The fuss isn't really that he got off, which imo is fair enough. The fuss is that the proceedings seem to have been hijacked and held to ransom.