This conversation looks like fun. I want in.
Before I start, I would love to see someone question my bias on India/Australia issues. I was born in North Wales of an Indian mother (who moved to England in her late teens in the 1960s, and thus was subject to racism of some magnitude) and an English father, and I have lived in Australia since I was a toddler. I am fiercely proud of my Indian heritage (just as I am of my British heritage and my Australian upbringing)- and if I wasn't I would face the wrath of that aforementioned Indian mother. She is NOT to be messed with.
Yes, racism (in it's most broadest possible sense) exists in every culture in the world, just as it has in every culture that has existed since the dawn of time. Seeing differences in people based on racial differences is a part of the human condition. Only the extent differs, between very superficial to wholly ingrained. To suggest otherwise is giving the human race far too much credit.
To answer another question posted previously (I think it was asked by honestbharani, but I am far too lazy to read back through the thread to confirm this)- yes, caste discrimination exists in all societies as well, but again to varying extents. In other places is is called class discrimination or something else, and in other places it is called the Rwandan genocide.
(For those getting ready to tell me that the conflict between the hutus and the tutsis is a racial one- the distinction is a racially artificial one, created by colonists as a way of dividing in order to rule. They are different social classes of the same race. But we're not here to discuss Rwanda, so I'll shut up about this now.)
Other examples include the class warfare of Khmer-era Cambodia, the gulags of Soviet Russia, the French Reign of Terror, and the feudal system of pretty much every pre-1800 monarchy. They are all examples of class distinction and discrimination, which happens everywhere. It just happens to be far more subtle in contemporary western societies.
Andy Symonds DIDN'T make a huge deal of the issue, he merely mentioned it and commented on it. If you read his first interviews on the subject, he actually was at pains to downplay the issue- I believe his quote was something along the lines of, "yeah, it was a bit disappointing, but I'm not the most serious bloke in the world, so it didn't affect me too much." The media definitely did run with it, though- and it wasn't just the Australian media.
I am all but convinced that the first occurrence of the "monkey chants" was NOT racially based, but rather just a generic zoological insult, comparable to calling someone a goose or a donkey or the like.
After the first instance and the publicity that followed, it became widely known that calling a black man a "monkey" drew racial connotations. The two instances that followed, therefore, were the result of segments of the crowd knowing that it would offend Symonds due to his racial background, and therefore WAS racially motivated.
As for the "myth" of the photographs of the "monkey" antics- unless cricinfo doctored a photo, then it was no myth. It was there, and for all I know still is. Again, FAR too lazy to find it and check.
Also, there seems to be a notion that the way to defend countrymen against examples of racism is to quote events where the country of the victim displayed racism. Racism isn't a defence for racism, it just reaffirms the fact that racists are everywhere, and that they are all just as bad as each other.
Mark Waugh was, in his usual laconic manner, addressing Symonds, and not the media. I watched the show, and the conversation that contained the mentioned quote.
Symonds attitude is completely irrelevant to his being racially insulted by a segment of the crowds. If you don't like what he says, then boo him until his ears bleed, or make fun of his Raggedy-Ann hairstyle, or his ridiculous looking zinc cream, or the fact that his test bowling average is higher than his batting average, or whatever. Don't attack the guy on the basis of his race- that just means that you lack imagination and wit, and are beneath contempt.
I'll add to this by saying that while I have no doubt that Sreesanth (and probably Harbhajan) is going to get an absolute pasting from the crowd if he tours Australia (which is, in my view, fine and dandy), if segments of the Australian crowd resort to racism, then they will be every bit as contemptible as those who have committed the same sin in India.
The BCCI are idiots for (initially) trying to sweep the issue under the carpet with their silly justifications. CA are neutered pillocks for not standing up for their player and (initially) going along with the BCCI's nonsense. As always, the ICC showed how irrelevent they are by doing and saying nothing aside from writing a few letters.
Strangely, I find the ICC's (and, in particular, Malcolm Speed's) anemic responses curiously comforting. I'm pretty sure that the ICC displaying any sort of leadership qualifies as a sign of the apocalypse at this point, and I'm sure no one wants that.
7. hahahahaha.... I will let fellow posters decide who is getting owned and by whom.
I hereby decide that I have owned everyone here. As someone who regularly surfs the internet AND who occasionally posts on message board (oh yes), I feel I am qualified as an expert on this and all other issues. Case closed.
You're all welcome.
Not that I am agreeing with any of the above, but would like to say it is well written, and lets hope you can start posting a little more often
Aww shucks. Thank you. Hopefully my writing ability properly conveys humour, too.
(HINT, HINT)
