ZCU - "We are not interested in white players, only new Taibus"

[Slow Love™]

Out of interest, it's basically the complete opposite of what happened in SA, so is it called apartheid or something else?

I'm kind of afraid to ask this, but why do you say that? Apartheid is the legal enforcement of racial segregation.

Zimbabwe does not practice the legal enforcement of racial segregation. Mugabe is instituting redistribution of land, because much of the farm land (70%) was appropriated by Cecil Rhodes' "British South Africa" company by force from black landowners in the 1890's, and that's the land these white landowners reside on.

While there is some basis for this redistribution to occur, what Mugabe has done (rather than follow a "willing buyer, willing seller" program as he originally promised) is to harrass, attack and evict by force many of these white landowners and has handed this land to political allies who are doing absolutely nothing with the land. But Zimbabwe does not actually have an apartheid system in place - Mugabe is simply your garden variety power-mad dictator, whose main objective is to destroy political opposition, terrorize the population, and eliminate a free press. He certainly plays the race card and talks up the "white conspiracy", but I don't think that there are a huge amount of similarities between what's happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa during the apartheid years.

And BTW, Roebuck is fast becoming an idiot and should shut his mouth on this issue, because he has nothing of value to say about it. Fancy calling people with moral concerns "contemptible". No, Peter, on this issue, you are.

 

[Richard]

Moral concerns are, if you ask me, misfounded.
I don't think any one team can have any qualms about touring Zimbabwe because not doing so won't change a thing.
If you ask me there can be nothing immoral about continuing as normal if change would offer nothing positive. And here, it wouldn't.

 

[anzac]

Moral concerns are, if you ask me, misfounded.
I don't think any one team can have any qualms about touring Zimbabwe because not doing so won't change a thing.
If you ask me there can be nothing immoral about continuing as normal if change would offer nothing positive. And here, it wouldn't.

ok I'll bite & / or play Devil's Advocate..........

how are the moral concerns misfounded???

how do you know that NOT continuing as normal won't eventually make changes or offer anything positive????

was the world then wrong to ban sporting contact etc with SA - remembering it took over a decade b4 any visible results came about?????

should we then turn a blind 'moral' eye to any & every power mad despot under similar circumstances???? or where do you draw the line as to the taking of action - when lives are lost or b4 hand??????

I also think you are somewhat missing the point - so what if nothing positive actually comes of it - it's the act as much as anything so that such despots do not think they have carte blanche in their 'own affairs', and that other such idiots may think twice.......and finally so that the 'victims' do not feel so isolated & friendless.........

bottom line I think you are either taking the **** or you are in danger of exhibiting very little social / moral concience - too often in the history of the human race have too many good people stood by and done nothing, while others have needlessly suffered............

you may call me an idealist but I have seen enough crap as a result of people saying / doing nothing - if there is no social / moral concience / voice then what is the f***ing point ???????

:!(

 

[Richard]

anzac, I thoroughly agree with you that without ethical values there is no point.
However, the point I was attempting to make (and have attempted to make many times) is that cricket plays very little part in World politics. There have been many, many acts that have been attempted to demonstrate that a blind-eye is not being turned to the Zimbabwe situation, of far, FAR more prominence than the cancelling of a single cricket tour or indeed even the unilateral, uni-cricket expulsion of The ZCU.
I have NEVER, EVER said that The GlenEagles Agreement was wrong - indeed, there is definate evidence that it had effect. I would not find any fault were a similar deal to be concocted WRT Zimbabwe now. I still have my doubts as to it's potential effects, but it's worth a try.
What is NOT worth a try is the stance of one sport, or even more ridiculously one team, on the matter, because as I have mentioned, there have been many far more prevolant acts undertaken. Mr. Blair, to his credit, has been one of the frontrunners.
I am sorry if I have offended you but I can assure you, I am MOST CERTAINLY NOT exhibiting no moral guidance. I have thought through this situation tirelessly, far more I suspect than most impulsive fools have.

 

[PY]

I would not find any fault were a similar deal to be concocted WRT Zimbabwe now. I still have my doubts as to it's potential effects, but it's worth a try.

I think a main problem would be the nature of the country. South Africa was prominent in the sporting world at the time in more sports than cricket whereas Zimbabwe is basically only involved in cricket on a worldwide scale. Less of a push for them to banned from world sporting arena.

I don't want to sound horrible but I'm getting slightly bored of the whole situation. There's SO much ****ing about going on, the saga just gets worse and worse.

ECB: Make your mind up, stick to what you have decided and then concentrate on dealing with consequences.

PS. I did an article on Zimbabwe a while ago and was shocked to find out that in Zimbabwe (according to the UN), one-half of the population are UN-standards suffering from starvation. Also Zimbabwe before this plan of re-distribution of land provided one-third of the wheat for the whole of Southern Africa (think it was Southern Africa, may well have been whole of Africa) and now these farms are dormant causing shortages to be greater.

I have a friend who's family were forcefully ejected from their farm and their farm has been unused since it's reclamation.

 

[anzac]

anzac, I thoroughly agree with you that without ethical values there is no point.
However, the point I was attempting to make (and have attempted to make many times) is that cricket plays very little part in World politics. There have been many, many acts that have been attempted to demonstrate that a blind-eye is not being turned to the Zimbabwe situation, of far, FAR more prominence than the cancelling of a single cricket tour or indeed even the unilateral, uni-cricket expulsion of The ZCU.
I have NEVER, EVER said that The GlenEagles Agreement was wrong - indeed, there is definate evidence that it had effect. I would not find any fault were a similar deal to be concocted WRT Zimbabwe now. I still have my doubts as to it's potential effects, but it's worth a try.
What is NOT worth a try is the stance of one sport, or even more ridiculously one team, on the matter, because as I have mentioned, there have been many far more prevolant acts undertaken. Mr. Blair, to his credit, has been one of the frontrunners.
I am sorry if I have offended you but I can assure you, I am MOST CERTAINLY NOT exhibiting no moral guidance. I have thought through this situation tirelessly, far more I suspect than most impulsive fools have.

my apologies for the misunderstanding mon amie..........

IMO someone has to take a stand to start the ball rolling - an ECB decision not to Tour may be that decision...........

As I posted earlier I was disappointed during the WC that the ICB & several Govts sat on their arses.............and that nothing further has been done since - a classic case of ignore it long enough and hope it goes away.........

just as I am disappointed with the ACB hosting ZIM in the earlier Test series or the current VB Series............

everyone seems to be taking the easy cop out........

and just to reiterate - I would have little / no qualms re the ZIM players missing out on any international career as a result of any ban - if they are really good enough they can emigrate & still make a good / better living overseas playing as a professional.......

 

[anzac]

PS. I did an article on Zimbabwe a while ago and was shocked to find out that in Zimbabwe (according to the UN), one-half of the population are UN-standards suffering from starvation. Also Zimbabwe before this plan of re-distribution of land provided one-third of the wheat for the whole of Southern Africa (think it was Southern Africa, may well have been whole of Africa) and now these farms are dormant causing shortages to be greater.

I have a friend who's family were forcefully ejected from their farm and their farm has been unused since it's reclamation.

not without precedent - Russia was the bread basket to Europe & one of the major wheat exporters in the world prior to The Revolution, yet within a decade they were importing wheat from the USA to meet almost a third of their annual domestic requirements, and it never got any better!!!!!!

futhermore having talked to several ex pats from various independant African nations, it is a common story with many - not only has their agriculture industry suffered, but also many of their utilities such as water, power & roads..........

 

[marc71178]

I have thought through this situation tirelessly, far more I suspect than most impulsive fools have.

Not the best way to win respect.

 

[Slow Love™]

Moral concerns are, if you ask me, misfounded.
I don't think any one team can have any qualms about touring Zimbabwe because not doing so won't change a thing.
If you ask me there can be nothing immoral about continuing as normal if change would offer nothing positive. And here, it wouldn't.

You're obviously confused about what a moral concern or principle actually is.

Whether or not what you do insititutes direct change has nothing to do with whether it's a valid moral concern or not. Absolutely nothing.

Of course the moral concerns are founded. You can argue that "this protest makes no difference" all you like, and can be correct or incorrect about it, but in no way does that kind of argument actually touch "how" moral something is. It's morality or immorality is untouched by arguments of how effective a particular protest is.

You say that you have thought about this far more than most impulsive fools have. That's not setting your bar very high. Perhaps you need to think about it a lot more, and understand that this kind of pragmatism is a very poor way to approach a moral issue. You can't define a moral position by how likely it is to result in change - the only thing you can define that way IS how likely it is to result in change.

 

[Rik]

ex-Zimbabwe quick Bryan Strang:

I think that's the 1st time I've heard the words "quick" and "Bryan Strang" together in a cricketing context! Very much medium-fast.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Re: Re: ZCU - "We are not interested in white players, only new Taibus"

I think that's the 1st time I've heard the words "quick" and "Bryan Strang" together in a cricketing context! Very much medium-fast.

Bryan Strang is in no way fast. He's a left-arm medium. He clocked in around 70mph when I last saw him. Very accurate though.

 

[Top_Cat]

And if you want a country which sweeps racist statements under the carpet, why dont you ban SA while you are at it?

And Australia for that matter.

My take? Ban them. So some budding careers get truncated. Big deal. Saving lives is more important and dealing with the ZCU and the Shonas in general legitimises their claim to power.

However, I agree with the person who said that England alone shouldn't have the carry the burden; the decision should be shared and unanimous., unless there are safety concerns immediately relevant to the English players (or whoever).

And as for the players claiming that because they're 'just cricketers' they don't try to understad the situation, well I just hope that justification helps them sleep at night whilst people are murdered for voting for Matebeles and not Shonas.

 

[Top_Cat]

And if you want a country which sweeps racist statements under the carpet, why dont you ban SA while you are at it?

And Australia for that matter.

My take? Ban them. So some budding careers get truncated. Big deal. Saving lives is more important and dealing with the ZCU and the Shonas in general legitimises their claim to power.

However, I agree with the person who said that England alone shouldn't have the carry the burden; the decision should be shared and unanimous., unless there are safety concerns immediately relevant to the English players (or whoever).

And as for the players claiming that because they're 'just cricketers' they don't try to understad the situation, well I just hope that justification helps them sleep at night whilst people are murdered for voting for Matebeles and not Shonas.

 

[Richard]

You're obviously confused about what a moral concern or principle actually is.

Whether or not what you do insititutes direct change has nothing to do with whether it's a valid moral concern or not. Absolutely nothing.

Of course the moral concerns are founded. You can argue that "this protest makes no difference" all you like, and can be correct or incorrect about it, but in no way does that kind of argument actually touch "how" moral something is. It's morality or immorality is untouched by arguments of how effective a particular protest is.

You say that you have thought about this far more than most impulsive fools have. That's not setting your bar very high. Perhaps you need to think about it a lot more, and understand that this kind of pragmatism is a very poor way to approach a moral issue. You can't define a moral position by how likely it is to result in change - the only thing you can define that way IS how likely it is to result in change.

OK, it's not that complicated.
Morality = rightness. Immoral - wrong; moral - right.
What President Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe is immoral if you ask me and almost everyone else who knows about it.
Anyone supporting him, hence, is undertaking an immoral act, by this stick. However, the problem appears to have arisen with the notion that doing nothing is immoral too.
If you ask me that is quite absurd.
How is someone supposed to be blamed for not acting on something on which they can have no influence?
Cricket (and more specifically English cricket) can, quite simply, have no effect on the situation in Zimbabwe, I don't think anyone really disputes that.
Therefore to shy from breaking the norm in order to undertake an effectless act is not immoral. To deliberately break the norm (ie as Rebel tours to South Africa did by breaking the GlenEagles Agreement) can, if you ask me, be construed as immoral.
Pragmatism is, in my view, the only way to approach anything. Right and wrong may not be black and white but why some people are determined to construe it as 4294967296 shades of grey is totally beyond me. It does not have to be some mysterious obscurity to relate to morals and ethics; it has to be straightforward, ie killing is immoral. If something is too complicated, you can't understand it. And there's no point in something if no-one can understand it.

 

[Richard]

my apologies for the misunderstanding mon amie..........

IMO someone has to take a stand to start the ball rolling - an ECB decision not to Tour may be that decision...........

As I posted earlier I was disappointed during the WC that the ICB & several Govts sat on their arses.............and that nothing further has been done since - a classic case of ignore it long enough and hope it goes away.........

just as I am disappointed with the ACB hosting ZIM in the earlier Test series or the current VB Series............

everyone seems to be taking the easy cop out........

and just to reiterate - I would have little / no qualms re the ZIM players missing out on any international career as a result of any ban - if they are really good enough they can emigrate & still make a good / better living overseas playing as a professional.......

I too am more than disappointed Govts and The ICC sat on their arses - because that caused The ECB to get the blame for something they had absolutely no way to get out of without serious damage.
If ICC had withdrawn the 6 games from Zimbabwe, this would have been a uni-cricket thing; if Parliament had banned the team from entering Zimbabwe ICC could have made no fair punishment.
I don't think individual cricketing bodies can ever have any fault placed on them; they cannot expect to influence ICC by one-off pull-outs. If anything, in fact, I think this would simply make them dig their heels in.
IMO ICC are the ones who need to start the ball rolling, if anyone - they need to start a unilateral anti-Mugabe isolation of Zimbabwe.
Even this is not guranteed to have any effect, but the only harm done would be to Zimbabwean players who, as has been said, if were good enough could seek overseas careers. I am perfectly confident the best 20 Zimbabwean players at least (including those who are retired) could challenge for places in most domestic sides around The World, with an odd exception (eg NSW).

 

[Slow Love™]

OK, it's not that complicated.
Morality = rightness. Immoral - wrong; moral - right.
What President Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe is immoral if you ask me and almost everyone else who knows about it.
Anyone supporting him, hence, is undertaking an immoral act, by this stick. However, the problem appears to have arisen with the notion that doing nothing is immoral too.
If you ask me that is quite absurd.
How is someone supposed to be blamed for not acting on something on which they can have no influence?
Cricket (and more specifically English cricket) can, quite simply, have no effect on the situation in Zimbabwe, I don't think anyone really disputes that.
Therefore to shy from breaking the norm in order to undertake an effectless act is not immoral. To deliberately break the norm (ie as Rebel tours to South Africa did by breaking the GlenEagles Agreement) can, if you ask me, be construed as immoral.
Pragmatism is, in my view, the only way to approach anything. Right and wrong may not be black and white but why some people are determined to construe it as 4294967296 shades of grey is totally beyond me. It does not have to be some mysterious obscurity to relate to morals and ethics; it has to be straightforward, ie killing is immoral. If something is too complicated, you can't understand it. And there's no point in something if no-one can understand it.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with pragmatism per se (I'm not totally sure what your "shades of grey" speech was trying to convey, to me at least) - I'm a strong advocate of it in issues of contraception in schools, abortion, politics etc, even in my actual opinion on whether Zimbabwe should be banned or not - it's just that it can't really be used to explain how moral or immoral a situation is, only how effective, ineffective or practical a response or action might be, according to your goals.

I was reacting directly to your comment that "moral concerns are unfounded", and your following mini-explanation of why.

For an individual or group, a decision NOT to go to Zimbabwe is certainly one that can be easily understood on a moral basis. This does not imply that somebody who goes to Zimbabwe is necessarily immoral, but for me, it's risible that Roebuck could describe those who would take such a stand (not wishing to go, or wanting to debate the morality of going) as contemptible.

And "doing nothing" should not really be equated with "touring". I would totally agree that "doing nothing" can't really be classed as immoral, because otherwise, we're all immoral for not demonstrably protesting against every kind of tyranny, exploitation or murderous regimes that exist (or even some of them). There's an open discourse about the situation in Zimbabwe though, and it's an obviously politically volatile decision for many countries, and a possibly dangerous region to send a team to. Going is not quite the same, morally, as sitting at home and ignoring the situation. To think otherwise is naive.

For the record, I'm not really advocating that Zimbabwe be banned or that countries don't tour there (although I'm open to the concept) - mainly for two reasons:

1) Consistency - there are numerous places we are all happy to go to in the pursuit of sport, that seem to cause NO controversy, such as Beijing, for the upcoming Olympics - I don't see a whole lot of countries around the world making noises about human rights where that's concerned.

2) These principles can unravel international sports affiliations. Right now, Australia's policies on asylum seekers might be found to be totally objectionable (and rightly so, although I'm not seeking to turn this thread into a debate on that subject) to those from the subcontinent. What if they refused to tour? What if people chose to refuse to go to India because of it's poverty/class situation? It's one of the reasons we require international co-operative bodies to make these kinds of decisions/agreements - it's a hairy area, and one I don't pretend to have all-encompassing solutions to.

Now, this is just me, and I acknowledge that they are pragmatic arguments. But I certainly do respect those who argue that a tour shouldn't be undertaken, providing their motives are truly a morally principled objection. The moral concerns tied up with participating in such a tour are certainly there.

One last thing (because my post is getting too huge) - your evaluation that not sending a cricket team to Zimbabwe won't make a difference to the situation isn't strictly true. While economic (and sometimes military) pressure is more directly successful, if all the cricket-playing countries banded together and refused to go, it would certainly make the situation a more popular issue, and would touch segments of the population (in the other countries) that perhaps hadn't been touched by it previously. There's no doubt that this kind of popular appeal/attention was helpful in the divestiture and stock pressure wielded by the general public and corporate enterprise in regards to the South African apartheid situation. It will always result in more attention being focussed on Zimbabwe, and many who protest would argue that's a very good thing.

I know that my post is a bit of each way, but to me, the issues at play are very complicated, and I reject the notion that somebody could dismiss such moral concerns as unfounded.

 

[Richard]

Your penultimate paragraph is kinda what I've been saying all along - there was definately evidence that The GlenEagles Agreement had some effect in South Africa and though people have pointed-out the relevance of prominence of sport to the respective situations, I still think there is a chance that a unilateral sporting boycott of Zimbabwe is worth a try.
However, what I am attempting to iterate is that one team refusing to tour won't have any effect, and is highly unlikely to, in anzac's words, set the ball rolling for a unilateral sporting boycott.
The reason I equate "doing nothing" with "touring" is because touring is the norm; tours are scheduled and the norm is for them to go ahead. Breaking the norm would be to pull-out of these tours. And to break the norm would, in my view, do no positive to the situation human-rights-abuse wise. Therefore there is no reason to do it.
By going-on all that similical stuff about shades of grey I was simply talking about the fact that people always seem to want to se morality as something obscure and indefinable. I really cannot stand that, it seems to me rank lunacy.
I do not see why any group could find immoralities about touring Zimbabwe - it really is as simple as: we cannot have any effect on the situation, so therefore there is no point making difficulties in other ways.
And finally, regarding the fact that immoralities can be found in playing sport anywhere: it simply is a question of "where to draw the line". If you try to right every wrong, you've got an impossible task on your hands.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Just regarding the effect any ban would have on Mugabe - I read somewhere (think it was a newspaper) that Mugabe's quite keen on cricket. Apparently he got a taste for it when his British captors pumped commentary into his cell as a kind of torture! Has anyone else heard this?

He's also the patron of the ZCU. Perhaps a ban would have an effect. A small effect, maybe, but something?

 

[Richard]

Everyone knows he's the patron of the ZCU.
Never heard that stuff about his passion for cricket, though.

 

[Langeveldt]

Everyone knows he's the patron of the ZCU.
Never heard that stuff about his passion for cricket, though.

"Cricket is a game which creates Gentlemen.
I want ours to be a Nation of Gentlemen" - R Mugabe


Well, Mad Bob..Most of your guys are Gentlemen :!( :!(