Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Bracken]

Funny how things change when it is not the person from your camp.....

Preach, my brother...

There are plenty of people here from BOTH sides that suffer from that particular brand of hypocrisy.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

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??from the first one?

Well, that's an apropos analogy for the likely on-field event - bilateral sniping which escalated to racial abuse. I find it ridiculous that the manner in how an altercation starts defines the nature of the way it finishes. If that's how you feel, then you need to track your everyday conversations more closely.

 

[pasag]

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



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

See - I don't see where you get that. The article lists the cases of racist things that were said, if it wasn't racist they would not have included it, however, this proves the exact point you are trying to sweep under the carpet, that it is infact a racial slur and the perpetrators felt it just as harmful as the N word and used it accordingly - by the mere fact they said it along side the N word proves the point.

There's no way a rational person can look at that case I've provided and come to the conclusion you seem to be coming to.

 

[Jono]

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 .

Pretty much shows why emotions in front of logic always results in rubbish. And some of that **** is downright disgraceful.

And Burgey, will all due respect, you've been shown to be pretty damn biased with your views all tour, so nothing too new here.

As far as I'm concerned, both parties are at fault here, BCCI and CA. And going further, the Australian cricket team, and the Indian team.

Great post. Can't disagree with much there.

No surprise there. Wouldn't expect anything more from one of the most biased people on this forum. But its good to see whose opinions I can take with a pinch of salt when it comes to international cricket affairs nowadays.

Love how the true views and bias come out eventually. Its always interesting.

And in the mean time, my (and many other people I assume) opinion of Michael Clarke just fell further. I used to have so much respect for this player two years ago as well.

 

[sirdj]

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?

Quite frankly as I still maintain the position of 'monkey' in the list of racial slurs is still debatable.
In the example that he gave there were a lot of racial slurs used and then the word monkey was used too.
My point is that after the '******' word has been used it is irrelevant what else follows. Even using 'god' as pseudo adjective does not save the conversation from being racist.

But had the entire swearing been non-racial in nature, and one of the swear word used was 'big monkey' or monkey, then I don't think the conversation would you have deemed to be racist.

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

If you feel I am trolling then why do you continue to engage in a conversation with me. Just stop.

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.

Yeah they are all waiting for pearls of wisdom from you.

 

[sirdj]

See - I don't see where you get that. The article lists the cases of racist things that were said, if it wasn't racist they would not have included it, however, this proves the exact point you are trying to sweep under the carpet, that it is infact a racial slur and the perpetrators felt it just as harmful as the N word and used it accordingly - by the mere fact they said it along side the N word proves the point.

There's no way a rational person can look at that case I've provided and come to the conclusion you seem to be coming to.

I am sweeping nothing under the carpet. I have said all along that the use of the word monkey by itself is not racist. But here it was not all that was said was it?? If it is used along with a prefix like 'black' or any other statements like above then it becomes racist.
You have based your interpretation of what I write purely on your emotions and not rationale.

 

[pasag]

I am sweeping nothing under the carpet. I have said all along that the use of the word monkey by itself is not racist. But here it was not all that was said was it?? If it is used along with a prefix like 'black' or any other statements like above then it becomes racist.
You have based your interpretation of what I write purely on your emotions and not rationale.

The responses are not based on any emotion but on a dumbfoundedness of your reluctance to admit calling someone a monkey can be a racist slur. This is pretty basic stuff really.

If you want to say in India they didn't know it is seen as racist fine (although that wouldn't excuse people use it the second time, like after Symonds explained it to Harby privately), but to say it's not a slur in other parts of the world particularly the west is just showing gross ignorance.

Shall I provide more stuff from my searches?

------------------------------------------------------

Soccer Skirmish Turns Spotlight on Brazil's Racial Divide

In all his years as a soccer player and referee, Jose de Andrade says, he never felt that being black subjected him to discrimination. But that was before the fateful police league game he supervised here last December, when, he and witnesses say, a retired police colonel, irate at seeing a teammate penalized, called Mr. Andrade a ''monkey'' and said his skin was the color of excrement[...]

------------------------------------------------------

White radio host fired for making racial slur against black mayor of Rochester, NY

A White radio talk show host in Rochester, NY, was fired for an on-air racial slur that alluded to the city's Black mayor as an orangutan.

Bob Lonsberry apologized, agreed to undergo diversity training and was off the air indefinitely. He was later fired after he attacked critics in a Web column saying the "liberal and afraid....seek to dominate society through threat and intimidation."

WHAM radio said in a statement that "although Mr. Lonsberry expressed a willingness to change, it became obvious to us that he is not embracing diversity."

Lonsberry, 44, has persistently baited Mayor William Johnson, Jr., a Democrat running for Monroe County executive in November election.

In August, Lonsberry joked on-air about an orangutan that escaped a zoo, then commented the animal was now running for county executive. He made a similar reference more recently with monkey sounds aired in the background. As monkey sounds played, Lonsberry said "a monkey's loose up at the zoo again- and he's running for county executive."

While Lonsberry, who is Republican, never mentioned the three-term mayor by name, Johnson said he believed Lonsberry deliberately injected race into the campaign.

 

[sirdj]

Well, that's an apropos analogy for the likely on-field event - bilateral sniping which escalated to racial abuse. I find it ridiculous that the manner in how an altercation starts defines the nature of the way it finishes. If that's how you feel, then you need to track your everyday conversations more closely.

The way the arguement began is irrelevent(as long as no other racist slurs were used) as just on its own legs the word monkey is not racist IMO.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Quite frankly as I still maintain the position of 'monkey' in the list of racial slurs is still debatable.
In the example that he gave there were a lot of racial slurs used and then the word monkey was used too.
My point is that after the '******' word has been used it is irrelevant what else follows. Even using 'god' as pseudo adjective does not save the conversation from being racist.

But had the entire swearing been non-racial in nature, and one of the swear word used was 'big monkey' or monkey, then I don't think the conversation would you have deemed to be racist.

Sometimes words define the context, and not vice versa. Simply because no racist intent was borne into the start of an exchange does not absolve one of racist remarks said further down the conversational line.

Equally, starting a convo with something suitably racial does not mean everything said therein carries a racial connotation. There are more than one ways to get under somebody's skin than under the one-dimensional model you're drawing here.

If you feel I am trolling then why do you continue to engage in a conversation with me. Just stop.

I'm not calling you a troll by any stretch, just saying that your replies to Gelman have been brinkmanship in that regard. Can't you just address his post for what it is?

Yeah they are all waiting for pearls of wisdom from you.

Until you stop descending into semantics, they'd better get comfortable.

 

[sirdj]

The responses are not based on any emotion but on a dumbfoundedness of your reluctance to admit calling someone a monkey can be a racist slur. This is pretty basic stuff really.

If you want to say in India they didn't know it is seen as racist fine (although that wouldn't excuse people use it the second time, like after Symonds explained it to Harby privately), but to say it's not a slur in other parts of the world particularly the west is just showing gross ignorance.

Shall I provide more stuff from my searches?

You needn't bother as you seem to miss my point entirely somehow.
In all your examples the exchanges had further racist remarks and not just 'monkey'.

 

[pasag]

The way the arguement began is irrelevent(as long as no other racist slurs were used) as just on its own legs the word monkey is not racist IMO.

Yeah, targeting the only black man in the side with a slur that has a long history of racial vilification is not racist? Come off it.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The way the arguement began is irrelevent(as long as no other racist slurs were used) as just on its own legs the word monkey is not racist IMO.

It IS if there's a surrounding context, i.e. it's not on its own legs. If I comply with your statement (for just a minute ) that a racially motivated conversation will stay racial, then it's reasonable to assume this exchange began in India when Symonds was called a monkey with undeniable intent.

Insofar as this 'conversation' is more of a 'relationship' between Symonds and Indians, Harbhajan continued this in his exchange with Symonds at Sydney. Hence when he dropped the 'monkey' bomb it carried the same weighting as it had in India.

Is that clearer?

 

[pasag]

Olde Is Sued by Former Trader In Racial Discrimination Case

A former trader at the Olde Discount Brokerage Corporation accused the brokerage firm yesterday of racial discrimination, in a class-action lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Chicago.

[...]

In the lawsuit filed yesterday, Mr. Laurent, who is black, said Olde engaged in a pattern of discriminatory conduct that included the mimicking of "so-called 'jive' talk" and the creation of a work atmosphere in which blacks were called "monkeys." [...]

 

[sirdj]

Sometimes words define the context, and not vice versa. Simply because no racist intent was borne into the start of an exchange does not absolve one of racist remarks said further down the conversational line.

And sometimes the context defines whether the word used was indeed racist or not for example two black people calling each other '******'.

Equally, starting a convo with something suitably racial does not mean everything said therein carries a racial connotation. There are more than one ways to get under somebody's skin than under the one-dimensional model you're drawing here.

Nope, once you start an unfriendly conversation with something the likes of '******' or 'Coon' then that is it, the conversation is racist, fullstop.

I'm not calling you a troll by any stretch, just saying that your replies to Gelman have been brinkmanship in that regard. Can't you just address his post for what it is?

I am quite sure I have never gone further than he has.

Until you stop descending into semantics, they'd better get comfortable.

Yup, they are your only audience.

 

[sirdj]

Olde Is Sued by Former Trader In Racial Discrimination Case

And yet again the word 'monkey' was not the only racist conduct.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

And yet again the word 'monkey' was not the only racist conduct.

Maybe not, but it was a defining feature of the racist workplace environment (enough to be one of only two mentioned in the synopsis) - which turned out to be grounds for litigation.

Are you saying that 'monkey' was meant in a purely benign sense there? I'd like to think I didn't need to confirm your thoughts here, but I can never be sure.

 

[Prince EWS]

I keep coming in here to have my say on this issue, but after I read the recent replies, I always opt against it. I'd say it was dissapointing, but my views (although not biased - far from it, in fact) would probably stir up a lot more trouble than they're actually worth as well, so it'd be a tad hypocritical.

It'll probably seem as if this post is pretty pointless, but it'll stop me from considering posting, typing up half a post and then not posting it all the time, so it's for the best.

 

[sirdj]

It IS if there's a surrounding context, i.e. it's not on its own legs.

So finally you are half where I want you to be

If I comply with your statement (for just a minute ) that a racially motivated conversation will stay racial, then it's reasonable to assume this exchange began in India when Symonds was called a monkey with undeniable intent.

Which is again going to be difficult as the ONLY word used was 'monkey'.

Insofar as this 'conversation' is more of a 'relationship' between Symonds and Indians, Harbhajan continued this in his exchange with Symonds at Sydney. Hence when he dropped the 'monkey' bomb it carried the same weighting as it had in India.Is that clearer?

I am telling you, that if you start taking offense with stupid words like 'monkey' then what do you do the next time someone else (knowing the history) smiles and calls him something like donkey or a pig. We all know what is being insinuated('monkey') but can you start booking everyone willy-nilly?

 

[pasag]

And yet again the word 'monkey' was not the only racist conduct.

The point is, which you seem to be missing is that in context it can be used as a racial slur ON ITS OWN. There are times when the N word can be used as a non-racial term as well, but on the whole when said to a black person it is usually a racial slur. Same with monkey.

You seem to be downplaying the fact that monkey can be a very racist term all throughout your posts on this subject and you have claimed it as trivial when I have showed you quite a few instances here where given a pretty similar context people can be very offended by it. The fact that someone doesn't say anything ahead of it doesn't make it any less racist in certain contexts and the fact that they do strengthens the point of how much of a slur it can be.

 

[Bracken]

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 they are doing no such thing. The suggestion that Procter was biased against the Indians is questionable at best, but the suggestion that the New Zealand Justice is also going to be biased is downright laughable.

The idea that the only way that an adjudicator can arrive at a disagreeable decision is due to a preconceived bias is simply wrong. The reason behind appointing someone independent is that they can examine the evidence presented before them, assign what they, in their independence, believe to be the appropriate weight to each witness, and arrive at the verdict that they believe to be supported by that evidence.

But for that process to not only be valid, but to be SEEN to be valid, a few things are necessary. Firstly, the witnesses' testimony has to be seen to be untainted by outside influence, and then the adjudicator himself must be similarly unencumbered by any fear or favour.

Now, the BCCI considered the first hearing to have been unfair. My personal view is that Procter was almost certainly unqualified to conduct such a hearing, but that the failing was the ICC's (and, by the fact that the BCCI has as much influence within the ICC as anyone, theirs also), rather than Procter's. The felt aggrieved, and threatened to pull out of the tour.

I think that making threats of this nature is an awful way to conduct themselves, but there is a (however thin) argument that they are supporting their player.

After the appeal was announced, and the arbitrator was decided, my view is that the BCCI had to do one of two things: Either object to the chosen person, or accept him and whatever verdict that he might come up with. To accept the Justice as an impartial adjudicator, and then publicly demand that the verdict match their wishes on the threat of a tour boycott is simply an abhorrent act.

Now, the truth behind whether or not the Australians were pressured, and the truth behind who was ultimately responsible for that pressure (whether it was just CA themselves wanting to insure themselves against a possible loss, or whether ESPN warned CA that they would sue, and this caused CA to go to the players, or if the BCCI made the approach to CA and that led to it) is still to be uncovered, but the fact is that it was the BCCI threat that made the suggestion that the Australian witnesses' testimonies credible, and therefore ensured that while justice may well have been done, it certainly wasn't SEEN to have been done- which is ultimately as important to ensure a trustworthy, transparent process.

The BCCI has absolutely no cause to have questioned the impartiality or qualifications of the Justice, and therefore had no reason to expect anything other than a reasonable, justifiable verdict based on the evidence presented. Threatening to withdraw from the tour if they didn't get the verdict that they wanted therefore had nothing to do with protecting their player against bias, but was simply a case of using their financial might to demand that their view be considered fact.

And that, in my view, is completely outrageous.