Sunil blasts the Australians part II

[BoyBrumby]

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.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a distortion. I wasn't implying that "European" is offensive, or even that the context Sunil used it in was offensive. He said:

"that kind of bullying does not raise any comment from these guys, presumably because it is coming from Europeans, while the BCCI standing behind its player who was wrongly and falsely accused of racist comment is looked as strong-arm tactics."

Which seems to imply, pretty clearly to my reading, that because whoever runs hockey is European (are they even? I don't know) "these guys" see nothing wrong with it. My issue with it is twofold: firstly that it's simply cobblers because I would imagine the vast majority of cricketing commentators were ignorant of what is obviously a hockey issue & secondly the implication that their silence is motivated by some bias against India or Indians.

I wouldn't call this view offensive as such, but I personally don't think it's very attractive either.

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.

A colour: orange & black are both hues. I did say it wasn't a good pun, but those adverts were absolutely ubiquitous in the UK in the early noughties.

Anyway, even if one accepts McLaurin is a reactionary old turd, bringing him into the discussion is, at best, a "two wrongs making a right" argument.

 

[Sanz]

Anyway, even if one accepts McLaurin is a reactionary old turd, bringing him into the discussion is, at best, a "two wrongs making a right" argument.

I wasn't arguing about right or wrong but trying to say that your following statement isn't necessarily true :-

"..if Geoff Boycott (to pick another embittered opener entirely at random) had used "Indians" in the same context he'd be (rightly) castigated as (at best) the worst kind of little Englander & at worst a borderline racist.."

Mclaurin made a statement which could be taken that way but it went unnoticed, I have forgot the count when people pass remarks about 'Indians' in public and on tv and nobody really cares. The Black in the East isn't that sensitive as your post was trying to convey.

 

[Sanz]

A colour: orange & black are both hues. I did say it wasn't a good pun, but those adverts were absolutely ubiquitous in the UK in the early noughties..

There is a different between Orange Telephone advert and a person referring to India as 'Black'.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I wasn't arguing about right or wrong but trying to say that your following statement isn't necessarily true :-

"..if Geoff Boycott (to pick another embittered opener entirely at random) had used "Indians" in the same context he'd be (rightly) castigated as (at best) the worst kind of little Englander & at worst a borderline racist.."

Mclaurin made a statement which could be taken that way but it went unnoticed, I have forgot the count when people pass remarks about 'Indians' in public and on tv and nobody really cares. The Black in the East isn't that sensitive as your post was trying to convey.

Fair enough, at least I can see what you meant now.

I still don't agree with the context being comparable tho (without wishing to go round in circles, but Mclaurin wasn't suggesting something was done on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity, even if it some might see it as insensitive at at very big stretch) & the remark was made 7 years ago.

 

[Burgey]

his is a honorary post i think

Good. Thanks for that.

It should make it less painful for him to step down from it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Fact that quite a few people are writting about it and ICC quickly tried to find a way to not elect Bindra says there quite a few people thinking about it that 2 Indians at top is not a good thing while 2 aussies being there wasn't a big problem.

It depends on their motivations though doesn't it!? Two people from anywhere can do a good job, or conversely they can do a poor job. I'd have no trouble with two people from Zimbabwe being there either, but if it was Robert Mugabe and one of his mates I'd have second thoughts.

As for Sunil...I think he's long been the champion of the 'victim' mentality and will probably continue to do so until his dying day. That's not to say he doesn't occasionally make a good point in amongst it all.

Edit: I think you'll find that watching India hold cricket to ransom until they got their own way in Australia recently would play on the minds of at least a few people.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly why would you care about what a person with more than 10000 test runs says? Better care about what a bowler bowling at the speed of wind (but alas, declaring his retirement too soon ) says... That'll suit you better...

You're right, 10 000 test runs makes him the World's leading expert on....nothing in particular. Although there's a strong argument that he'd have an idea about the game of cricket.

 

[adharcric]

Welcome to the forum mate, great first post.

Superb post indeed. Had the awards still been around, I'd give that a Hussey if not an Afridi.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is becoming quite a norm in this forum.. If a European had doen it than imagine the racism uproar in Subcontinant etc..
i wonder why the Europeans maybe accused of racist motives at times maybe because the Europeans have a long history of being racist so its goin to take more than just 30 or 40 years of trying to correct your society for people to stop from this perception.
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... so please don't give me why are we accused for the wrongs of our shameful ancestors.

And this attitude is one of the reasons why things don't progress.

 

[Richard]

Superb post indeed. Had the awards still been around, I'd give that a Hussey if not an Afridi.

On that subject, you couldn't email me so as to remind me to email you whenever I next check my email, could you? As I keep forgetting to email you.

 

[Sanz]

Somewhat different circumstances surrounding those two players though

Let's not go there.

 

[Sanz]

Superb post indeed. Had the awards still been around, I'd give that a Hussey if not an Afridi.

If the awards were still around, you wouldn't be giving them away.

 

[honestbharani]

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?

I never said he was a racist. Juz that whatever he said has negative racist connotations, which it certainly does.

 

[honestbharani]

I find this incredible.

so is there not a reason why we call them "Afro-Americans" or whatever, instead of juz calling them "blacks"???????

 

[honestbharani]

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.

IMO, it is no more absurd than saying that the word "monkey" is a racist term. The word "black" has as much racist connotation as the word "monkey".

 

[honestbharani]

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.

So who on earth calls Asians "black"??????????????????????????????

 

[pasag]

so is there not a reason why we call them "Afro-Americans" or whatever, instead of juz calling them "blacks"???????

Context is everything obviously. If black was used as part of a sledge on the cricket field then it would be undeniably racist, but used as a description like 'caucasian' or whatever it's not. Same with Jew, Asian and many other words out there that can be used in a variety of different ways depending on the tone, the context and the intent. I'd even venture to say the same with the 'n-word', that it is becoming less and less racist with it's frequent use and there are becoming more times, especially in comedy situations, catch-phrases that it just has no racial overtones (though I'm not saying it's acceptable, just not racist).

This was a fundamental thing in the Symonds case that many people missed, especially when he said that his mates make fun of his skin colour or stuff like that all the time. The reason why that's no problem is because it's done in a harmless way and the words themselves aren't really the issue, it's what's behind them. If I went to the zoo and pointed at an animal and said 'hey there's a monkey', that'd be fine. If an Indigenous person walked past and I said the same thing it'd be extremely racist and offensive (but again, if I was best mates with the bloke and we had an ongoing joke/banter to that extent it'd be fine as well, given it's not bullying or anything). Same with almost anything, depending on the situation, tone and intent.

 

[honestbharani]

Context is everything obviously. If black was used as part of a sledge on the cricket field then it would be undeniably racist, but used as a description like 'caucasian' or whatever it's not. Same with Jew, Asian and many other words out there that can be used in a variety of different ways depending on the tone, the context and the intent. I'd even venture to say the same with the 'n-word', that it is becoming less and less racist with it's frequent use and there are becoming more times, especially in comedy situations, catch-phrases that it just has no racial overtones (though I'm not saying it's acceptable, just not racist).

This was a fundamental thing in the Symonds case that many people missed, especially when he said that his mates make fun of his skin colour or stuff like that all the time. The reason why that's no problem is because it's done in a harmless way and the words themselves aren't really the issue, it's what's behind them. If I went to the zoo and pointed at an animal and said 'hey there's a monkey', that'd be fine. If an Indigenous person walked past and I said the same thing it'd be extremely racist and offensive (but again, if I was best mates with the bloke and we had an ongoing joke/banter to that extent it'd be fine as well, given it's not bullying or anything). Same with almost anything, depending on the situation, tone and intent.

Exactly... Context is everything. And while MacLaurin may NOT have meant it that way, in that context, it does create a suspicion of being "racist"...

 

[Swervy]

Let's not go there.

good move

 

[Son Of Coco]

IMO, it is no more absurd than saying that the word "monkey" is a racist term. The word "black" has as much racist connotation as the word "monkey".

It depends on the context...if I say I'm going to the zoo to look at the black monkeys then neither word is racist. If I'm fully aware that either of them can have bad connotations when used in relation to people and use them accordingly then it does. If by 'zoo' I mean a place that's full of people, and 'black monkeys' are some of the people there then I definitely am being racist.

It'd get hard to describe certain things (like the night sky, asphalt) if you couldn't use the word 'black'

I know that's not what you meant though.

Edit: Bugger...someone has already used the zoo example!