Sunil blasts the Australians part II

[silentstriker]

That's not remotely the same context tho, is it? Sunil was clearly implying that if the hockey powers-that-be weren't "European" everyone would've been up in arms about it. McLaurin was stating a fact: India is the financial powerhouse of the game. There's no negative connotation in that per se.

Haha, you're kidding me right?

 

[ret]

Really Gavaskar is losing whatever little respect he had in the global cricket circuit, for god's sake he is involved with the ICC and he should mind the kind of words he is using, i mean he just comes across a man with a lot of venom inside him for other nations, he is still stuck in some pre-historic period because he definitely doesn't seem to be in sync with the current times.

Some of the points that he made were valid, while some were rubbish

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well what can I say, if you do not see any negative connotation in that statement.

Haha, you're kidding me right?

No, I'm not. McLaurin was actually making a pun (not a very good one, admittedly) on adverts that ran over here for Orange telephones, tagline "The future's orange".

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here; how is using the word "black" negative? I've never once even vaguely thought of it as pejorative.

 

[Richard]

Cannot believe anyone is seriously insinuating that Lord MacLaurin is some form of anti-Asian bigot.

I wonder, how many of those who've criticised his terminology know so much as a single thing about him?

 

[Richard]

You guys may not have directly done the deeds but there's a saying that says your future generation has to pay for the wrong doings of your ancestors...

And it's the biggest heap of bull**** anyone has ever come-up with. Creating more wrongs in the future does not alter one single thing about wrongs committed in the past. It's a pointless, mind-numbingly stupid attitude, and anyone who perpetuates it is a disgrace to humanity. No exaggeration there.

 

[Swervy]

Generally, it is not always the best thing to do... Being a white guy and calling someone black. Not that it is wrong but the sensitivities from all those years of racism needs to be respected.

I find this incredible.

 

[silentstriker]

Cannot believe anyone is seriously insinuating that Lord MacLaurin is some form of anti-Asian bigot.

I wonder, how many of those who've criticised his terminology know so much as a single thing about him?

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across like I was accusing anyone of anything like that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here; how is using the word "black" negative? I've never once even vaguely thought of it as pejorative.

It's an extraordinary leap, and smacks of searching for racist connotations in ANY discussion of race, IMO. In no sense is "black" an offensive term. Certainly it's a term you could use in an offensive context, but saying "the future of cricket is black" is no more inherently negative than saying "the future of cricket is Asian" or "the future of cricket is Indian". If the statement was made in a negative context it's another issue entirely. The terminology is not a problem.

Anyway, the idea that it is racist to refer to someone as black is absurd, and the irony of suggesting that it is wrong for a white person to do so isn't all that hard to see.

 

[Sanz]

It's an extraordinary leap, and smacks of searching for racist connotations in ANY discussion of race, IMO. In no sense is "black" an offensive term. Certainly it's a term you could use in an offensive context, but saying "the future of cricket is black" is no more inherently negative than saying "the future of cricket is Asian" or "the future of cricket is Indian". If the statement was made in a negative context it's another issue entirely. The terminology is not a problem.

Anyway, the idea that it is racist to refer to someone as black is absurd, and the irony of suggesting that it is wrong for a white person to do so isn't all that hard to see.

Ofcourse, referring a country with the skin color of its people cant be considered racial, but referring european writers as 'Europeans' can be considered racial.

Very convincing argument there.

I learnt a new thing today, 'Black' is not offensive, 'European' is.

 

[Sanz]

No, I'm not. McLaurin was actually making a pun (not a very good one, admittedly) on adverts that ran over here for Orange telephones, tagline "The future's orange".
I'm not being deliberately obtuse here; how is using the word "black" negative? I've never once even vaguely thought of it as pejorative.

Pun for what ? Color of people that represent India or pun for the darker future of cricket .

former is racial outlook, later is negative outlook. Take your pick.

 

[Richard]

No. Can you read? A pun on the Orange (mobile-phone) network advertisments!

 

[Googenheim]

No. Can you read? A pun on the Orange (mobile-phone) network advertisments!

You spin a good yarn. Aren't subcontinentals brown rather than black?

 

[Sanz]

I didn't want to say anything about Mclaurin, but now that it has been brought up, I must say his anti Asia bias is well known at least in the Indian subcontinent. He is the same guy who In 2001 wanted Akram to be sacked (because of his alleged involvment in Match fixing) from the touring Pak team but kept mum on his boy Alec Stewart.

 

[Richard]

You spin a good yarn. Aren't subcontinentals brown rather than black?

That's why it seems a little odd. "The future is brown" would indeed have been more accurate, but who on Earth calls Asians "brown"? It's a term I almost never hear.

 

[Richard]

I didn't want to say anything about Mclaurin, but now that it has been brought up, I must say his anti Asia bias is well known at least in the Indian subcontinent. He is the same guy who In 2001 wanted Akram to be sacked (because of his alleged involvment in Match fixing) from the touring Pak team but kept mum on his boy Alec Stewart.

No, it's not well-known. It's well-presumed. That was indeed a slightly odd stance for him to take, and I've never heard him give an explanation for it (though obviously no-one serious ever seriously believed Stewart guilty of anything, as presumably they didn't Wasim Akram) but anyone trying to mix it up as anti-subcontinent bias is contemptible, nothing less.

 

[Swervy]

Aren't subcontinentals brown rather than black?

So are people of African decent, aren't they?

 

[Swervy]

I didn't want to say anything about Mclaurin, but now that it has been brought up, I must say his anti Asia bias is well known at least in the Indian subcontinent. He is the same guy who In 2001 wanted Akram to be sacked (because of his alleged involvment in Match fixing) from the touring Pak team but kept mum on his boy Alec Stewart.

Somewhat different circumstances surrounding those two players though

 

[Googenheim]

So are people of African decent, aren't they?

They're black.

 

[Swervy]

They're black.

I thought you were meaning the literal meaning of black, which of course those of African decent arent, they are brown

 

[Googenheim]

I thought you were meaning the literal meaning of black, which of course those of African decent arent, they are brown

Nah, I've always heard subcontinentals referred to as brown people and African descent people as black, irrespective of actual skin colour.... in similar vein to caucasian people being referred to as white, rather than pink. So this McLaurin guy was either painfully ignorant of the proper terminology, or plain racist.