Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[sirdj]

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.

In that particular case no as other racist comments were also used, but was Harbhajan thinking of himself as a more evolved human and racially superior to Symonds when he used the word??

 

[pasag]

In that particular case no as other racist comments were also used, but was Harbhajan thinking of himself as a more evolved human and racially superior to Symonds when he used the word??

Doesn't really matter, many people don't really understand the deeper racial connotations of most slurs commonly used, and it doesn't make it any more acceptable as long as they understand it is derogatory in nature, which we know Harby knew as Symonds told him*.

Note all this is still arguing the case pre-appeal and the theory of that.

 

[shankar]

In that particular case no as other racist comments were also used, but was Harbhajan thinking of himself as a more evolved human and racially superior to Symonds when he used the word??

This is the real crux IMO. It's fine to say that Harbhajan knew that the word monkey is offensive to Symonds and still used it to anger him. But there is no basis to say that he held racist beliefs while saying it. This is the same problem with the crowd problems in India. It's one thing to say that they called Symonds monkey in an act of boorish behaviour. When you say that they were being racists while calling Symonds a monkey you arbitrarily distort and redefine the experience of an Indian in the crowd to be the same as that of the classical racist of the text-book.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

In that particular case no as other racist comments were also used, but was Harbhajan thinking of himself as a more evolved human and racially superior to Symonds when he used the word??

Highly doubtful, but that's not the point. Harbhajan did not say it out of genuine conviction of the slur's truth. He said it in the vain hope of having the last word in an on-field exchange, because he was fully aware of the effect it would have on Symonds.

One need not be a racist to be condemned for racist remarks. Harbhajan's actions were simply spawned from supreme ignorance of the consequences.

That same ignorance has seen what he intended to be a tactical move as racist by the rest of the world. Does one have to be a dyed-in-the-wool, out-and-out card-carrying white supremacist, starting a conversation with obvious racist intent, to have anything they say to be construed as racist? It's a long bow to draw, you'll agree.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

This is the real crux IMO. It's fine to say that Harbhajan knew that the word monkey is offensive to Symonds and still used it to anger him. But there is no basis to say that he held racist beliefs while saying it. This is the same problem with the crowd problems in India. It's one thing to say that they called Symonds monkey in an act of boorish behaviour. When you say that they were being racists while calling Symonds a monkey you arbitrarily distort and redefine the experience of an Indian in the crowd to be the same as that of the classical racist of the text-book.

AWTA. The issue is that racist comments aren't borne out of pure racism as such - but out of ignorance, a much more common affliction. What some Indian fans and Harbhajan have taken umbrage to is that we're accusing them of systematic racism. We're not. We're accusing them of being ignorant enough to fail to recognise that words that bear racist connotation might be construed as offensive elsewhere in the world.

 

[shankar]

Doesn't really matter, many people don't really understand the deeper racial connotations of most slurs commonly used, and it doesn't make it any more acceptable as long as they understand it is derogatory in nature, which we know Harby knew as Symonds told him*.

Note all this is still arguing the case pre-appeal and the theory of that.

It does make a difference. If Harbhajan merely understood the word to be offensive to Symonds, then how does his action (presuming he said it) differ from Symonds' of abusing Harbhajan knowing he'd be angered by it after making a pact earlier?

 

[sirdj]

The point is, which you seem to be missing is that in context it can be used as a racial slur ON ITS OWN.

The point that you are missing is that if the entire exchange consisted of just one abuse, and all that was said was just 'monkey' and there is no other racist behavior to enforce that the slur was racist, then there is no way you can say with conviction that it was racist.
And if you bring down the bar to include monkey, then heaven help you enforce the final list of slurs, it will be impossible and the whole purpose of the list will be defeated.

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.

There is no way that monkey = ****** in terms of levels of offensiveness.

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.

Try proving that in a court of law( When the entire interaction consists of just one word 'monkey' without any other behavior or pattern of racism)

 

[pasag]

This is the real crux IMO. It's fine to say that Harbhajan knew that the word monkey is offensive to Symonds and still used it to anger him. But there is no basis to say that he held racist beliefs while saying it. This is the same problem with the crowd problems in India. It's one thing to say that they called Symonds monkey in an act of boorish behaviour. When you say that they were being racists while calling Symonds a monkey you arbitrarily distort and redefine the experience of an Indian in the crowd to be the same as that of the classical racist of the text-book.

If he did say it - I don't think Harby is a racist nor that he thinks he's superior to other races, I don't think Lehmann is one either. Nor Michael Richards for that matter. But racial vilification is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, regardless of the specific thought process behind the person saying it.

 

[silentstriker]

I, for one, do not separate racists from guys who merely say racists things. If you say it, that's who you are. Harbhajan, Lehmann, Gibbs etc are all racists as far as I'm concerned. To what degree they harbor those feelings in their everyday lives is another matter.

 

[shankar]

AWTA. The issue is that racist comments aren't borne out of pure racism as such - but out of ignorance, a much more common affliction. What some Indian fans and Harbhajan have taken umbrage to is that we're accusing them of systematic racism. We're not. We're accusing them of being ignorant enough to fail to recognise that words that bear racist connotation might be construed as offensive elsewhere in the world.

If so, then how does Harbhajan's act differ from so many other incidents where players abuse each other. They're all abusing knowing that it has an effect on the person listening.

 

[pasag]

The point that you are missing is that if the entire exchange consisted of just one abuse, and all that was said was just 'monkey' and there is no other racist behavior to enforce that the slur was racist, then there is no way you can say with conviction that it was racist.
And if you bring down the bar to include monkey, then heaven help you enforce the final list of slurs, it will be impossible and the whole purpose of the list will be defeated.


There is no way that monkey = ****** in terms of levels of offensiveness.

Try proving that in a court of law( When the entire interaction consists of just one word 'monkey' without any other behavior or pattern of racism)

This one abuse was directed to the only black man in the side for the second time by the player and by the crowd. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what is going on.

And again, you triviliase the word monkey and the damage it can cause when you have shown and explained to by many here that it can be very harmful. It is a word that has long been used to denigrate certain peoples and is very, very loaded. I wouldn't say it is as bad as the N word but it is pretty close. You say it to an African American in NY and you'll get the same result. This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[sirdj]

Doesn't really matter, many people don't really understand the deeper racial connotations of most slurs commonly used, and it doesn't make it any more acceptable as long as they understand it is derogatory in nature, which we know Harby knew as Symonds told him*.
Note all this is still arguing the case pre-appeal and the theory of that.

Harbhajan is an Idiot, and if there is watertight evidence against him, then he should be punished. I am NOT trying to defend him for the nine hundredth and ninety ninth time. It just so happens that the twerp used the term 'monkey' which I feel should not be in the list of slurs because it leads to reducing the bar for racist terms, if the term monkey is allowed the as the Indians have been arguing you may have to include 'bastard' and then before you know it you will have a 10,000 page document which can never be enforced.

 

[pasag]

I, for one, do not separate racists from guys who merely say racists things. If you say it, that's who you are. Harbhajan, Lehmann, Gibbs etc are all racists as far as I'm concerned. To what degree they harbor those feelings in their everyday lives is another matter.

Have had this discussion a few times before on here and I disagree depending on if the comment was one off and the sincerity of the apology. Especially when there is stupidity involved.

 

[sirdj]

Just to clarify again. My position is.

1) There is no place for racism in society & there is no place for sledging in sport.
2) Everyones opinion on what is racist is not the same, a coloured person opinion is more valid(but I am open to any good argument that convinces me otherwise)
3) To include 'monkey' as a slur lowers the bar on what is a racial slur and the final legislation will not be worth the paper written on as it will not be properly enforcable(pretty much like most of the RIAA laws on music sharing)
4) Harbhajan is an idiot.


What else have I missed??

 

[shankar]

If he did say it - I don't think Harby is a racist nor that he thinks he's superior to other races, I don't think Lehmann is one either. Nor Michael Richards for that matter. But racial vilification is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, regardless of the specific thought process behind the person saying it.

To show that it is racial vilification you need to show that Harbhajan's actions have to do with Symonds being black.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If so, then how does Harbhajan's act differ from so many other incidents where players abuse each other. They're all abusing knowing that it has an effect on the person listening.

It doesn't differ a bit. That's why the ICC has a statutory policy on racial abuse.

 

[pasag]

Harbhajan is an Idiot, and if there is watertight evidence against him, then he should be punished. I am NOT trying to defend him for the nine hundredth and ninety ninth time. It just so happens that the twerp used the term 'monkey' which I feel should not be in the list of slurs because it leads to reducing the bar for racist terms, if the term monkey is allowed the as the Indians have been arguing you may have to include 'bastard' and then before you know it you will have a 10,000 page document which can never be enforced.

Ok, looks like we're making some leeway here. Monkey is not lowering the bar, it can be a highly racist term in western society, it does not trivialise racism, because of its extreme racial nature and loaded history it epitomises racism in a similar way to the N word. It is not as bad as that, but almost. This is not being petty and trying to create issues were there are not, this is a very serious term.

If bastard is a highly offensive term in Indian society like people have seem to indicate then that should be banned as well. As I said from the start, sledging shouldn't be banned but abuse should and players should be properly educated in other cultures to enlighten them on what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[sirdj]

This one abuse was directed to the only black man in the side for the second time by the player and by the crowd. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what is going on.

Somehow this keeps coming back to Harbhajan when I keep saying that I dont wanna defend him. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HARBHAJAN.
But since you insist, the alleged abuse was directed towards the only player sledging him at that time.

And again, you triviliase the word monkey and the damage it can cause when you have shown and explained to by many here that it can be very harmful. It is a word that has long been used to denigrate certain peoples and is very, very loaded. I wouldn't say it is as bad as the N word but it is pretty close. You say it to an African American in NY and you'll get the same result. This is pretty basic stuff.

And you trivialize racism if you lower the bar for 'monkey'.

 

[sirdj]

Ok, looks like we're making some leeway here. Monkey is not lowering the bar, it can be a highly racist term in western society, it does not trivialise racism, because of its extreme racial nature and loaded history it epitomises racism in a similar way to the N word. It is not as bad as that, but almost. This is not being petty and trying to create issues were there are not, this is a very serious term.

Be as it may, try enforcing this('monkey') in a schoolyard. You are bound to fail.

If bastard is a highly offensive term in Indian society like people have seem to indicate then that should be banned as well. As I said from the start, sledging shouldn't be banned but abuse should and players should be properly educated in other cultures to enlighten them on what is acceptable and what is not.

But the Australian team have always maintained that they sledge, they don't abuse and they know the unwritten line in the sand. Try convincing them otherwise.

While I feel that there is no place for sledging in sport, I am also acutely aware that the world we live in is warped and nothing is going to remove sledging from cricket. All that can be done is to have some solid laws regarding racism. But if there is a 5,000 page list of racist slurs then you can forget that as well

 

[pasag]

Somehow this keeps coming back to Harbhajan when I keep saying that I dont wanna defend him. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HARBHAJAN.
But since you insist, the alleged abuse was directed towards the only player sledging him at that time.

And you trivialize racism if you lower the bar for 'monkey'.

Doesn't really matter what the reason was, it was the second time that allegedly happened from the player and had happened a couple of times previously from the crowd. To claim this final time could have been as the result of anything other then a racial slur is reaching. If the only black man in the side was called a monkey numerous times it's pretty simple as to what is going on. Especially after it was explained to the person and a big deal made previously.

And again, eradicating racial slurs like this is not trivialising racism but the route to its cure. Obviously no one is saying that the word monkey should be banned from the playing field but in a certain context, like this one, it is completely unacceptable. Just like if any Australian called any Indian player by the exact same word. Again you underestimate the severity of the word and its impact in western society.