Sunil blasts the Australians part II

[social]

"It's completely up to him."

Ooooooooooh, I wonder what he'll do - money or the game?

 

[silentstriker]

From cricinfo.

Hmm...

I think its a fair thing. He can't keep speaking out publically if he continues to be involved in an official capacity with the ICC.

I rather hope he'd choose to remain with the ICC over the media, as I think he'd be better in that capacity than as a flamethrower columnist, but either way, he does have to choose one.

 

[Sanz]

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

Mclaurin

 

[Sanz]

First of all i want to let u all know that i am Afghan from afghanistan and not pakistani.. ..

Right !! and that is as true as - I am an American from America or Swervy an english from England.

 

[Googenheim]

Haha. Gavaskar bares some uncomfortable truths, and suddenly the evil ICC becomes 'the game' for some. Bitter much?

 

[Richard]

Gavaskar bears some truths and speaks a hell of a lot of needlessly inflammatory bull****, which does no-one any good whatsoever. This is far from the first time either.

It's quite right that he should be told to make the choice.

 

[pasag]

Context is everything, though some of it is not necessarily borne out of racism as much as of ignorance. For example, the term ' black' or 'dark' is sometimes used generically to denote something bad. The best example of this is ' Black Monday' for the US stock market crash even though most of the shareholders/investors/traders are white. Can you imagine anyone calling this ' White Monday ' ?

My point is that the terms 'black', 'dark' etc are used in everyday lexicon not necessarily out of racist undertones, but by a lack of awareness that they could be offensive.

' Blackballed ', ' Blacklisted ', ' Black sheep of the family', 'Black eye' , 'Its a dark day..' etc etc are used even by some reputable media to denote generally bad happenings.

Am not sure about McLaurins motives nor want to speculate specifically on that utterance, nor am I defending him.

Just making the point that people/publications use that term not necessarily out of racism, but out of habit/innocence/unawareness/ignorance...take your pick.

Just try typing ' Black Monday/Tuesday....' on the net and see how much hits you get, none of which portray happy happenings.

FWIW, I'm against using that term in any adverse context other than to describe a color.

Serious? Can you show any link between the certain attributes to certain colours in a racial context? There's some stuff on wikipedia on it, but seriously nearly every colour has a range of associations connected to it and it really has nothing to do with any form of racism and unless you can show me historical evidence to the contrary I really don't see any issue at all with using those colours to illicit certain imagery as the link to race is non-existant, imo.

 

[Burgey]

Step down for what exactly? The ICC knew about his media commitments when they appointed him in an advisory capacity.

Because he's doing the equivalent of flame-baiting other officials and the ICC itself, when he's an official of that organisation.

 

[silentstriker]

Serious? Can you show any link between the certain attributes to certain colours in a racial context? There's some stuff on wikipedia on it, but seriously nearly every colour has a range of associations connected to it and it really has nothing to do with any form of racism and unless you can show me historical evidence to the contrary I really don't see any issue at all with using those colours to illicit certain imagery as the link to race is non-existant, imo.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...52C0A96E948260&st=cse&sq=Vernon+McClean&scp=2
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_4_75/ai_84865972/pg_4

The first one is by a professor of history. I can't find it now, but I once read a real great scholarly article analyzing the history of some of these terms and their usage throughout history. I don't necessarily agree with all of the above two articles but the one I mention was absolutely fantastic, I'll try to find it.

 

[pasag]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...52C0A96E948260&st=cse&sq=Vernon+McClean&scp=2
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_4_75/ai_84865972/pg_4

The first one is by a professor of history. I can't find it now, but I once read a real great scholarly article analyzing the history of some of these terms and their usage throughout history. I don't necessarily agree with all of the above two articles but the one I mention was absolutely fantastic, I'll try to find it.

Interesting stuff but I still can't see the link other than a circumstantial one and it doesn't explain the use of black as a symbol of death, fear amongst many other any cultures, countries etc (I'm guessing, maybe there isn't).

 

[Sanz]

Because he's doing the equivalent of flame-baiting other officials and the ICC itself, when he's an official of that organisation.

Not that I care about Gavaskar's job with ICC, but I fail to see how is it going to help the situation ?

 

[Burgey]

Not that I care about Gavaskar's job with ICC, but I fail to see how is it going to help the situation ?

How can an organisation have confidence in an office holder who plainly has no confidence in the organisation itself, and ascribes to that organisation and its employees various negative and in some cases unsavoury attributes?

He's entitled to his views of course, but I don't see how he can reconcile them with his holding a position with the ICC.

 

[honestbharani]

No, it doesn't. If you say something has racist connotations, that means you are being racist. Simple as.

Lord MacLaurin has no such leanings, whatsoever. It's madness to suggest he does TBH.

No-one, which is why it's purely and simply very odd. It makes no sense. It doesn't make sense either as a racist remark or a non-racist remark.

so he is juz stupid?????????????????

 

[honestbharani]

It really does take quite something to work that up into that.

No point trying to change the mind of someone like that.

I wonder if anyone has ever said "the future's black" to describe a bad-looking future? If so, it'd be news to me. "Bleak" tends to be the term of choice.

I am honestly astounded that you don't know the word "black" in almost every context of its usage has negative connotations.


And given the context of what MacLaurin said, it does have "racist" connotations as well, whether he meant it or not.

 

[Sanz]

How can an organisation have confidence in an office holder who plainly has no confidence in the organisation itself, and ascribes to that organisation and its employees various negative and in some cases unsavoury attributes?

He's entitled to his views of course, but I don't see how he can reconcile them with his holding a position with the ICC.

When did this become about ICC ? I mean Gavaskar is going to continue to write what he wants to and the way he wants to. His position with ICC has no bearing on the article he writes. To me it sounds like a vendetta against the man.

Anyways, Guess who is being talked as his replacement ? Mark Taylor.. a really non biased individual.

 

[honestbharani]

"It's completely up to him."

Ooooooooooh, I wonder what he'll do - money or the game?

yeah... right... like ICC are THE GAME.....

 

[honestbharani]

Mclaurin

lol.. it was a kinda rhethorical question......

 

[Burgey]

When did this become about ICC ? I mean Gavaskar is going to continue to write what he wants to and the way he wants to. His position with ICC has no bearing on the article he writes. To me it sounds like a vendetta against the man.

Anyways, Guess who is being talked as his replacement ? Mark Taylor.. a really non biased individual.

Ok, I'll type this slowly. Please steer clear of the conspiracy theory that there's a vendetta against him. Believe me, I couldn't give a toss about him.

Of course his being on the ICC has no bearing on the article he writes, but what he says in the article reflects the attitude he takes into going about his job at the ICC, and it certainly affects the perception as to how he goes about his job there.

So, his being on the ICC does not affect what he writes, but what he writes can affect his job at the ICC.

What it's about is him writing things about ICC officials and about ICC members, when he's an official of the ICC himself. It's about the ICC because he holds a position with the ICC. If he has whatever issue with people within the ICC, then as an official, the way to raise it is internally.

It would be like me umpiring a test, and writing a column in the middle of it saying that a certain team has whatever problem, then going out an officiating on them. It's untenable mate.

Whoever does the job, be it Sunny Gavaskar or Mark Taylor should bring their grievances up internally, that's all the point is. It's not about who's biased or unbiased ( ) because whoever does it is going to have their various issues which are important to them. What counts is how they go about raising those issues.

Reverse the situation - imagine there was an ICC official from say Australia or NZ, and they had some beef with an ICC official from India, or something Indian cricket had done. You think the BCCI would like to hear about it first from a newspaper headline and article written in an inflammatory way, or do you reckon they might like to have it raised through the official channels of the ICC?

I'd suggest the answer is self-evident.

 

[Sanz]

Reverse the situation - imagine there was an ICC official from say Australia or NZ, and they had some beef with an ICC official from India, or something Indian cricket had done. You think the BCCI would like to hear about it first from a newspaper headline and article written in an inflammatory way, or do you reckon they might like to have it raised through the official channels of the ICC?

I'd suggest the answer is self-evident.

There is an ICC official with the name of 'Tim May', he is from Australia and a member of the same committee that Gavaskar is chairman of and he has been making a lot of comments about BCCI in the media and BCCI has been okay with it.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Tim-May-lashes-out-at-BCCI/285012/

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23299213-2722,00.html
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23302886-23212,00.html

 

[Sanz]

Whoever does the job, be it Sunny Gavaskar or Mark Taylor should bring their grievances up internally, that's all the point is. It's not about who's biased or unbiased ( ) because whoever does it is going to have their various issues which are important to them. What counts is how they go about raising those issues.

Reverse the situation - imagine there was an ICC official from say Australia or NZ, and they had some beef with an ICC official from India, or something Indian cricket had done. You think the BCCI would like to hear about it first from a newspaper headline and article written in an inflammatory way, or do you reckon they might like to have it raised through the official channels of the ICC?

I'd suggest the answer is self-evident.

Talking about Mark Taylor, another member of the same committee that Gavaskar Chairs, he has been pretty vocal too :-

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23433023-5006372,00.html

FORMER Test skipper Mark Taylor has condemned the International Cricket Council's "zero tolerance" approach to sledging but Cricket Australia has branded the ban as old news.