Dean Jones sacked for racist remark

[SJS]

Exactly. I actually can't see what's thought-provoking about that article at all. I suspect all that article will do is provide justification for people to generalise and stereotype people who they don't like.

When I said it is thought provoking I did not mean for a second that I agreed with what was written in its entirety.

What I found thought provoking, and I chose my words carefully, is that there will be people who will conciously or subconciously be drawn into stereo-typing. Having lived in Delhi during the Punjab separatist movement in india, I have leved through this. (I was having a full beard and wore a turban then) Thus there is no way, I am going to justify the stereo typing but what it does makes me think that people will get affected by this daily conditioning from what they see, read and absorb.

I have two sons living in the USA. The second one had just gone a month before September 11 atacks. My family was all in NY at the time and my sons had to face some ugly confrontations with people who identified them with the perpetrators of the attack. So there is no way I can be on any side but that of people like Amla.

But, the fact is that THIS is how a very large number of people (dont know if they are a majority or not) do behave. To recognise that this is a common place human failing is not the same as justifying it.

 

[Dasa]

When I said it is thought provoking I did not mean for a second that I agreed with what was written in its entirety.

What I found thought provoking, and I chose my words carefully, is that there will be people who will conciously or subconciously be drawn into stereo-typing. Having lived in Delhi during the Punjab separatist movement in india, I have leved through this. (I was having a full beard and wore a turban then) Thus there is no way, I am going to justify the stereo typing but what it does makes me think that people will get affected by this daily conditioning from what they see, read and absorb.

I have two sons living in the USA. The second one had just gone a month before September 11 atacks. My family was all in NY at the time and my sons had to face some ugly confrontations with people who identified them with the perpetrators of the attack. So there is no way I can be on any side but that of people like Amla.

But, the fact is that THIS is how a very large number of people (dont know if they are a majority or not) do behave. To recognise that this is a common place human failing is not the same as justifying it.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

 

[Anil]

An extremely thought provoking article though some may find it provocative without the 'thought' bit going into it.

HIGHLY RECOMENDED READING !

a long beard might project the identity of a muslim, why should amla be prepared to accept being identified with the negative of that symbol, in this case, that of a radical, because of idiots like dean jones? nair seems to be talking through his hat...

 

[Fusion]

a long beard might project the identity of a muslim, why should amla be prepared to accept being identified with the negative of that symbol, in this case, that of a radical, because of idiots like dean jones? nair seems to be talking through his hat...

Yeah I don't buy the reasoning of Nair. He says:

Then, to be outraged when somebody, deliberately or otherwise, chooses to associate a long beard with a terrorist, only suggests that the empowerment is far from complete. It suggests that one is still, sadly and perversely, happy to play the victim.

Huh? So if you're a Musling and have a long beard, and someone even deliberately chooses to associate you with a terrorist, it's ok? If you complain, you're happy to play the victim? Bull. Sometimes political correctness does go too far. But being called a terrorist because of your appearance is a mighty good reason to be offended.

 

[howardj]

But being called a terrorist because of your appearance is a mighty good reason to be offended.

True.

So is being called a 'dog' because you're fat.

Point is that heaps of people, in many different ways, do what Jones did (i.e. attribute something negative to someone because of a particular physical characteristic).

That doesn't make it right.

But, in (rightly) condemning Jones, let's make sure we're not, in our own day-to-day lives, being hypocrites, by practicing prejudice in some other form.

 

[Fusion]

True.

So is being called a 'dog' because you're fat.

Point is that heaps of people, in many different ways, do what Jones did (i.e. attribute something negative to someone because of a particular physical characteristic).

That doesn't make it right.

But, in (rightly) condemning Jones, let's make sure we're not, in our own day-to-day lives, being hypocrites, by practicing prejudice in some other form.

You make valid points. However, there are different degrees of insults/prejudices aren't there? I mean you can call someone "fat" or "moron" and they'll be offended sure. But call them insults with a generous helping of the "f-word" and some other lively four letter insuts, and there's likely to be a fight breaking out. So yes, we may all at some time be guilty of prejudice of some sort. But there is a difference in the level and degree to that prejudice. IMO, calling someone a "terrorist" because of their appearance is higher insult than calling someone fat.

 

[howardj]

Well, it all depends on whose shoes you walk in. Someone, I'd imagine, who has been teased and stared at all their life because they are obese, would find it just soul-destroying as any other sort of prejudice. Obviously, and understandly, people concentrate on racial prejudice though, as that has, throughout history, resulted in some terrible atrocities.

 

[Fusion]

Well, it all depends on whose shoes you walk in. Someone, I'd imagine, who has been teased and stared at all their life because they are obese, would find it just soul-destroying as any other sort of prejudice. Obviously, and understandly, people concentrate on racial prejudice though, as that has, throughout history, resulted in some terrible atrocities.

And I think that's where the difference lies. People have been lynched, beaten, murdered, imprisoned because of racism. Currently, there are people apprehended and whisked away to secret prisons without charges and any hopes of being release because their apprehenders think them to be terrorist. So IMO, that's why the comment from Dean Jones is all the more offensive. Again, I agree with you points that we all need to look in the mirror and correct any faults due to prejudices (if there are some).

 

[SJS]

You make valid points. However, there are different degrees of insults/prejudices aren't there? I mean you can call someone "fat" or "moron" and they'll be offended sure. But call them insults with a generous helping of the "f-word" and some other lively four letter insuts, and there's likely to be a fight breaking out. So yes, we may all at some time be guilty of prejudice of some sort. But there is a difference in the level and degree to that prejudice. IMO, calling someone a "terrorist" because of their appearance is higher insult than calling someone fat.

Let me tell you something that happened to me 22 years ago.

Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister was shot dead by her own body guards who were Sikhs. They said they did it as revenge against Mrs Gandhi's ordering the army to enter the holiest of Sikh sites with tanks and damage the place where besides terrorists holed in, hundreds od innocent devotees were killed in the army shelling.

In the three days after Mrs Gandhi was killed, riots broke off in Delhi and thousands of Sikhs were massacred on the roads of Delhi. Hudreds were dragged out of their houses and burnt alive. All of us lost some relative in it and for three days we were trying to hide in our houses hoping we will survive. !

After things had cooled down and I was at a friends place where everyone was offering their sympathies for what happened to Sikhs and there was a debate on why innocent civilians should suffer for the deeds of a few.

At this point, the wife of my best friend said, "No, I disagree. It serves "you people' right for the terrorism in Punjab"

I froze. Till this day, I have not forgiven her for indirectly blaming me for the militancy in Punjab. And our friendship never recovered from that blow. But the fact remains that someone as close as that to me, virtually blamed me for the terrorism in Punjab only because I shared the same religion. She went beyond that. She told me that if I had lost relatives in the massacres following Mrs gandhi's death, I deserved it !!!

What do you say to that?

Clearly, I am not justifying what she said. I have already said that I have not forgiven her to this day BUT she DID say so and did not take back one word when her husband admonished her.

Unfortunately, this is how a very large number of people in this world behave when a particular community gets identified with a particular movement.

Not right but it happens. We cant EVER justify it but we cant pretend that it doesnt happen. It happens MORE often than not.

 

[Fusion]

Let me tell you something that happened to me 22 years ago.

Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister was shot dead by her own body guards who were Sikhs. They said they did it as revenge against Mrs Gandhi's ordering the army to enter the holiest of Sikh sites with tanks and damage the place where besides terrorists holed in, hundreds od innocent devotees were killed in the army shelling.

In the three days after Mrs Gandhi was killed, riots broke off in Delhi and thousands of Sikhs were massacred on the roads of Delhi. Hudreds were dragged out of their houses and burnt alive. All of us lost some relative in it and for three days we were trying to hide in our houses hoping we will survive. !

After things had cooled down and I was at a friends place where everyone was offering their sympathies for what happened to Sikhs and there was a debate on why innocent civilians should suffer for the deeds of a few.

At this point, the wife of my best friend said, "No, I disagree. It serves "you people' right for the terrorism in Punjab"

I froze. Till this day, I have not forgiven her for indirectly blaming me for the militancy in Punjab. And our friendship never recovered from that blow. But the fact remains that someone as close as that to me, virtually blamed me for the terrorism in Punjab only because I shared the same religion. She went beyond that. She told me that if I had lost relatives in the massacres following Mrs gandhi's death, I deserved it !!!

What do you say to that?

Clearly, I am not justifying what she said. I have already said that I have not forgiven her to this day BUT she DID say so and did not take back one word when her husband admonished her.

Unfortunately, this is how a very large number of people in this world behave when a particular community gets identified with a particular movement.

Not right but it happens. We cant EVER justify it but we cant pretend that it doesnt happen. It happens MORE often than not.

SJS, reading this story makes me even more adamant that Dean Jones should've been punished harshly. Like you stated, these attitudes do prevail in the world. So we need to CONFRONT them. Not back down and say "well people think this way, what are you gonna do?". At the same time, we need to educate people personally to eliminate this attitude. I feel that I need to be an "ambassador" of sorts as a Muslim living in the U.S. I'm constantly educating my colleagues about my religion and how Islam does not condone what the terrorist are doing. If I am able to reach out and change the thinking of even one person, I will be happy.

 

[Sanz]

What do you say to that?

All I say is, you are better off without such friends.

 

[Dasa]

Let me tell you something that happened to me 22 years ago.

Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister was shot dead by her own body guards who were Sikhs. They said they did it as revenge against Mrs Gandhi's ordering the army to enter the holiest of Sikh sites with tanks and damage the place where besides terrorists holed in, hundreds od innocent devotees were killed in the army shelling.

In the three days after Mrs Gandhi was killed, riots broke off in Delhi and thousands of Sikhs were massacred on the roads of Delhi. Hudreds were dragged out of their houses and burnt alive. All of us lost some relative in it and for three days we were trying to hide in our houses hoping we will survive. !

After things had cooled down and I was at a friends place where everyone was offering their sympathies for what happened to Sikhs and there was a debate on why innocent civilians should suffer for the deeds of a few.

At this point, the wife of my best friend said, "No, I disagree. It serves "you people' right for the terrorism in Punjab"

I froze. Till this day, I have not forgiven her for indirectly blaming me for the militancy in Punjab. And our friendship never recovered from that blow. But the fact remains that someone as close as that to me, virtually blamed me for the terrorism in Punjab only because I shared the same religion. She went beyond that. She told me that if I had lost relatives in the massacres following Mrs gandhi's death, I deserved it !!!

What do you say to that?

Clearly, I am not justifying what she said. I have already said that I have not forgiven her to this day BUT she DID say so and did not take back one word when her husband admonished her.

Unfortunately, this is how a very large number of people in this world behave when a particular community gets identified with a particular movement.

Not right but it happens. We cant EVER justify it but we cant pretend that it doesnt happen. It happens MORE often than not.

Wow. I have to wonder what the mindset of people like that is - I just cannot fathom thinking, let alone saying, something like your friend's wife said.

 

[Slow Love™]

I've gotten a bit confused as to what SJS's argument is, but one point I would make is that it's wrong to treat what SJS's friend's wife said to him and Jones's remark about Amla the same way. In fact, there is a clear distinction between a sloppily prejudicial remark (which may have been made in a friendly manner) where the person making the comment is genuinely apologetic of their own stupidity, and such a clear-headed accusation that is defended and not apologized for, that is motivated by anger and a desire to assign blame.

 

[Anil]

Wow. I have to wonder what the mindset of people like that is - I just cannot fathom thinking, let alone saying, something like your friend's wife said.

no offence sjs, but the same closed mindset as the mass murderers that went on a rampage killing 1000s of innocent sikhs in the aftermath of indira gandhi's assassination...

 

[Anil]

I've gotten a bit confused as to what SJS's argument is, but one point I would make is that it's wrong to treat what SJS's friend's wife said to him and Jones's remark about Amla the same way. In fact, there is a clear distinction between a sloppily prejudicial remark (which may have been made in a friendly manner) where the person making the comment is genuinely apologetic of their own stupidity, and such a clear-headed accusation that is defended and not apologized for, that is motivated by anger and a desire to assign blame.

but there is also a similarity here, they are both highly irresponsible, prejudicial remarks based on some general negative perceptions about that particular community, jones apologized probably because he was a public figure and he was under pressure to do so, the lady in question was not in the public eye and in the heightened emotional situation after the assassination, she was probably not under 1/10th that pressure(making an assumption here of course) to reconsider her words or apologize....

 

[Slow Love™]

but there is also a similarity here, they are both highly irresponsible, prejudicial remarks based on some general negative perceptions about that particular community, jones apologized probably because he was a public figure and he was under pressure to do so, the lady in question was not in the public eye and in the heightened emotional situation after the assassination, she was probably not under 1/10th that pressure(making an assumption here of course) to reconsider her words or apologize....

Yes, they are similar in that they are both irresponsible and prejudicial, but that's not the point, because the comments are not similar in scale. We are way too fast to call people racists for sloppy prejudicial comments that they regret, and I maintain, we ALL make them (and if you think you don't you are kidding yourself). We DON'T all espouse racial or religious hatred at some time or another.

It is vitally important, IMO, to preserve a sense of scale in such accusations, because the outcome of not doing that has a) watered down the accusation, and b) made it way too easy to not take it seriously. There is absolutely no good to be come of treating them the same way.

EDIT: And I don't want to keep harping about SJS's example, but this person said this to somebody who was previously a FRIEND, in a clear-eyed accusation where there could be no doubt as to her meaning or intention. That to me is far worse than a thoughtless remark intended to be humorous that hasn't really considered the consequences.

 

[SJS]

What I was trying to say was :

- Most people are NOT clear headed or level headed
- Most people DO NOT think for themselves
- Most people are CONDITIONED by what they read, hear and THINK they see
- Most people are influenced by propaganda - both which is organised and aimed to be propaganda and that exists in a society, nation, people in a form that has come about over time
- Most people tend to identify themselves with a particular type and this makes them first paint themselves into a corner which comes out in emotionally sensitive situations. This automatically makes them paint everyone else either as belonging to their own corner or to that of an opponent (real or imagined)

This is the unfortunate truth that we need to face and accept.

Can this be removed...no not completely but surely all of us can do our bit by reducing such prejudice born of conditioning, often masquerading as patriotism or religious fervour, from our own selves.

BECAUSE while it sticks out like a sore thumb in others, it is so damn difficult to see when it is inside ourselves !!

Look around on this forum and you see so many examples of it even in mundane cricketing matters.

Just pretending to be sane and level headed when it is regarding something that doesnt concern us directly doesnt NECESSARILY, mean we are free of such prejudices ourselves.

 

[Anil]

Yes, they are similar in that they are both irresponsible and prejudicial, but that's not the point, because the comments are not similar in scale. We are way too fast to call people racists for sloppy prejudicial comments that they regret, and I maintain, we ALL make them (and if you think you don't you are kidding yourself). We DON'T all espouse racial or religious hatred at some time or another.

It is vitally important, IMO, to preserve a sense of scale in such accusations, because the outcome of not doing that has a) watered down the accusation, and b) made it way too easy to not take it seriously. There is absolutely no good to be come of treating them the same way.

EDIT: And I don't want to keep harping about SJS's example, but this person said this to somebody who was previously a FRIEND, in a clear-eyed accusation where there could be no doubt as to her meaning or intention. That to me is far worse than a thoughtless remark intended to be humorous that hasn't really considered the consequences.

agree with what you are saying about the racism bit, also the fact that most people have made prejudicial statements which they have regretted later(i certainly have), but as for a sense of scale, well the scale works in several ways, couldn't a public announcement(as inadvertent as it might have been) by a public figure be considered a far worse mistake than an angry remark by a largely anonymous person at a private party? also the fact that he intended it to be humorous is seen largely as a mitigating factor, i wonder why, it really does not alleviate the effect of the statement....it just makes it all the more patronizing, callous and reprehensible....

 

[Slow Love™]

agree with what you are saying about the racism bit, also the fact that most people have made prejudicial statements which they have regretted later(i certainly have), but as for a sense of scale, well the scale works in several ways, couldn't a public announcement(as inadvertent as it might have been) by a public figure be considered a far worse mistake than an angry remark by a largely anonymous person at a private party? also the fact that he intended it to be humorous is seen largely as a mitigating factor, i wonder why, it really does not alleviate the effect of the statement....it just makes it all the more patronizing, callous and reprehensible....

The question we'd have to ask would be - were they both acknowledged mistakes? And did both come with similar intent? I believe therein lies the answer.

As to the humor being mitigating, I get your point. You can have somebody who does that frequently, and the intent can be quite malicious, even if they appear to be "joking". However, I do not identify a pattern of behaviour in this regard for Jones (apart from stupidity, with which he's quite consistent ), and considering it seems his relations with subcontinental players/commentators have been quite friendly to date, I regard his comment as a foolish abberation.

It would be very different if he was known to have a history in making like remarks about particular peoples though.

 

[FRAZ]

What do you say to that?

.

SJS ! You are better off without such people . I think this "generalizing " issue is the basic disease in our societies . I salute you for one thing and I cannot just mention that particular thing over here.But anyways I really respect and Honor the way you still love your cricket there . And please don't take it in a bad way .
tbh , why not people just understand one damn thing and that is," such public comments(racist) are not there to be defended in anyway ".Its just a common fashion now . I still don't think that I am defending Dean but he shouldn't have been sacked because he said some thing which is in the minds and brains of some "people" and its their household pet talk.And in the flow of emotions the gentleman(Dean Jones) spilled out what he usually thinks.