Gavaskar on the Broads

[Shri]

When certain moron referees openly come out an admit they use a different standard to judge players based on nationality, it doesn't exactly do anything to alleviate those conceptions, to be honest.

Haven't read/heard about instances like these. Any links of said instance?

 

[Jono]

When certain moron referees openly come out an admit they use a different standard to judge players based on nationality, it doesn't exactly do anything to alleviate those conceptions, to be honest.

Hear hear

 

[Sanz]

This is just the kind of reverse racism that Gavaskar, Imran Khan, Bedi, and many other sub continental senior cricketers love indulging in. The fact that you are sitting here repeating what he wrote shows that he knows his audience and that the damage is done."

So how does Race become a part of this ?

 

[Sanz]

Most of whom are full of ****.

Could be and I am not saying that whatever Sunny has said is a fact. That said it is a fact that Broad has been getting away with and that there have been inconsistency about how fines have been handed out.

 

[bagapath]

it is alright to call gavaskar's comments unfair or ill judged or controversial or even stupid. but giving it a reverse racism tag is actually indulging in racism when he has not brought the skin color or nationality or religion in his accusations. why cant his comments be taken for what they are and judged accordingly? why should this be seen as a non-white man complaining about white men ganging up together? reverse-racism sounds like non white gavaskar is still suffering from some inferiority complex and he is hitting at the whites unnecessarily. it is not correct, IMO. i find the term very racist, as though racism was practiced by only one race over the other all these years and the other one is hitting back now with pent up inferiority complex.

gavaskar says the chirs broad - umpires relationship makes it uneasy for the umpires and referees to pull up stuart as often as they should. it is possible that the relationship is playing the role. it has got nothing to do with anyone's skin tone. lets talk about whether this accusation is true or not.

 

[SJS]

it is alright to call gavaskar's comments unfair or ill judged or controversial or even stupid. but giving it a reverse racism tag is actually indulging in racism when he has not brought the skin color or nationality or religion in his accusations. why cant his comments be taken for what they are and judged accordingly? why should this be seen as a non-white man complaining about white men ganging up together? reverse-racism sounds like non white gavaskar is still suffering from some inferiority complex and he is hitting at the whites unnecessarily. it is not correct, IMO. i find the term very racist, as though racism was practiced by only one race over the other all these years and the other one is hitting back now with pent up inferiority complex.

gavaskar says the chirs broad - umpires relationship makes it uneasy for the umpires and referees to pull up stuart as often as they should. it is possible that the relationship is playing the role. it has got nothing to do with anyone's skin tone. lets talk about whether this accusation is true or not.

Let me explain why I call it reverse-racism.

All the people I have named, including Gavaskar, have a history of talking of "these goras" or "these white men" and to me there is no other name for it.

Gavaskar may not have mentioned the colour of Broad's skin in this particular piece (I haven't read it) but when there is a history of such comments from a source, people see the link and even when its not there.

The gentleman who talked to me about the article, started off with "How these people (meaning the English, Australian and South African Cricket officials) have double standards and how they treat "our boys" differently.

I may be wrong in inferring that this specific piece has a 'reverse-racism' tone but I was reacting, perhaps over-reacting, to Gavaskar's record on such issues.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

"Reverse racism" doesn't exist. It's either racism or it isn't.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yesterday we had friends over for dinner and one of them started of on how these guys get away with murder and gave the example of what Gavaskar had written. I hadn't heard of the issue before but immediately recognised this as the sort of thing Gavaskar would write. This is what I told my friend.

"The issue is not whether or not Broad should be/have been disciplined or taken to task now or in the past on more than one occasion. The problem with what Mr Gavaskar is saying is the insinuation that his father is the reason that this is so. This is just the kind of reverse racism that Gavaskar, Imran Khan, Bedi, and many other sub continental senior cricketers love indulging in. The fact that you are sitting here repeating what he wrote shows that he knows his audience and that the damage is done."

How does suggesting that a player gets away because of his father equate to 'reverse racism'?

 

[Cruxdude]

As SJS said Gavaskar has used colour in his arguments earlier so he guessed he did the same here.

 

[G.I.Joe]

"Reverse racism" doesn't exist. It's either racism or it isn't.

Usage of that term says more about the person using it than the intended subject tbf.

 

[G.I.Joe]

As SJS said Gavaskar has used colour in his arguments earlier so he guessed he did the same here.

With iron clad stereotypical logic like that, who needs racists? Oops, I mean reverse racists.

I'm curious. If a Chinese man discriminates against an African, is that racism or reverse racism? If an African discriminates against an Inuit, whats that?

 

[Cruxdude]

I would think reverse racism as used by SJS means you just assume everyone is discriminating against you because of your colour.

 

[silentstriker]

The academic definition of racism is discrimination + power. Meaning, if in Zimbabwe, you are white and are discriminated against, it's racism. If you're black and discriminated against, it'd be discrimination.

If, the same happens in Apartheid era SA, it'd be the other way around. Not that I necessarily buy all of that definition, but that's what's generally accepted in academic circles. So as per that definition, if Inuit are a disadvantaged group in that part of Africa, or if Africans in general are disadvantaged in China, it'd be racism, otherwise it's discrimination.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I would think reverse racism as used by SJS means you just assume everyone is discriminating against you because of your colour.

Whats the term for people who assume that everything a particular person says has its roots in perceptions of racial discrimination?

 

[Cruxdude]

Whats the term for people who assume that everything a particular person says has its roots in perceptions of racial discrimination?

Hasty

 

[SJS]

Let me clarify.

Reverse racism is just a term that has got accepted for a particular reference. It has no "officially sanctioned" meaning.

Historically racism has been used to refer to discrimination by the powerful/dominant race against the weaker one. Thus the whites indulged in racism and the blacks were the victims.

Reverse racism pertains to the phenomenon of the race 'historically' the victim of 'racism' using similar sentiments against the 'dominant' community. So blacks or browns could be indulging in reverse racism when they stereo typed whites or worse.

As I said, its just an accepted term today and there is no more to be read into its exact definition.

 

[honestbharani]

Most of whom are full of ****.

u mean like including folks like u and me?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Bedi keeps questioning Murali's action. Bedi is South Asian. Murali is South Asian. So if Murali were white, would that make Bedi a 'reverse racist'? Learn to play the argument, not the colour, people.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

The academic definition of racism is discrimination + power.

As far as I'm aware, no. Racism is simply discrimination based on "race".

 

[silentstriker]

That definition permeates through most courses in Sociology, Anthropology, and Women's Studies courses I've taken. As I said, I don't necessarily buy it, but that's how academically, it's defined here.