Is calling "Monkey" is racism?

[sun]

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Really? ALL those making racist gestures or chants were removed? I don't think so.

I have read it in news papers.

Symonds said he would rather prefer that the focus be on the game of cricket.
"I understand racism in all sports is a sensitive, serious and global issue. I would much prefer the focus be on the cricket," he said.
After four spectators were charges of harassment and misbehaviour for allegedly making monkey gestures towards Symonds, the Australian said he was pleased that action was taken to tackle the issue.
"It is pleasing to see the authorities here in Mumbai tackle the issue after the seventh one-day match," said the all-rounder who bagged the man-of-the-series award in the seven-match ODI series.
Symonds 'uncomfortable' under spotlight

Now can you please let me know what has been done, when Indians were harassed in Australia.

[devgupt]

Originally Posted by Bigfella

As for my comments on skill, that is very much what this is about. India is losing & they don't like it. Instrad of getting on with the game they are making excuses for their own failings. It is the loser's way.
.

You were down 130-6 and had Symonds been given out on any of the 3 occasions he was clearly out (as anyone watching the match would confirm) your total would have been nowhere near 463.The dismissals of Dravid and Ganguly- two batsmen who were set changed the course of the match.Had the Umpires been not blind you would have been beaten.

Genghis Khan was also a champion. sorry to say but Ponting looks very similar

Originally Posted by Bigfella

And Latif, how on earth am I supposed to comment on something I haven't even seen? According to the description he dropped the ball & regathered it. When did this happen during the Sydney test?
.

If you would have watched the replays , Ponting took a catch, grounded the ball immediately , but still appealed .Very similar to what latif did

Originally Posted by Bigfella

One thing strikes me, however. Mike Proctor was the match referee then as he is now. There have been clear implacations in the comments of many posters here that Proctor is biased in his ruling in Sydney. If so, why would you use one of his judgements as an example? If he was biased against Harbhajan, why not Latif? This is the problem, you see, when logic is abandoned in favour of fevered conspiracy theories.
.

I quote this example to show that rules are for asians only.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Bigfella

The match referee heard all the testimony & made his decision after a lengthy hearing. I will trust his 8 hours of hearing testimony over the few minutes of edited footage you& I have seen.

We Indians trust what Sachin Tendulkar said. He is the man with ethics. He is the person who walked out of the creese when he was out, without waiting for umpires decision. Rather than, believing what Clarke said, who was waiting in creese even if he has clearly nicked a ball to first slip and started waiting for umpires decision.
What happened during hearing, both Indians and Australians gave their statements. Without providing any concrete evidence. So how come, the statements of Australians takes more importance over Sachin Tendulkars statement?

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Anyone who has spent any time with Australians in virtually any context will be familiar with the way we use the word 'bastard'. it is not used to imply lack of patentage here.

This is the classic example of cultural gap. If calling 'bastard' is ok for Australians, Indians dont see offence in calling 'monkey'.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

If, as claimed, Indians have suffered under a barrage of sledging lo these long years then they would have heard the word. If Indians find the term particularly offensive they have had decades to make this clear, as we did with 'monkey'. As far as I know this has not been done. The report of Hogg was simply a pathetic attempt at a 'square up'.

We understood the cultural gap and taken that word sportively. Same thing would have done by Australians also. There was absolutely no necessity to start this controversy.
If this racism controversy had not been started, it would have only only stand off between India and Umpires.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

So what? I can give you examples of Australians being fined for things that either didn't happen on the field, or didn't happen at all (Glen McGrath allegedly spitting at an Indian player being a case in point - the side on shot was deceptive, the end-on shot showed McGrath many metres away from the player).

Lets start digging the past, let us see who finds more incidents
My friends I can assure you that you will find incidents at the ratio of 5:1 against Indians and sub continental players.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

And here we have a classic example of the great double standard at play here. You are complaining about alleged pressure on a match referee to fine a player (I believe the penalty has been voided). Yet you seem unconcerned with a cricket team blackmailing the ICC into changing umpires & ignoring its own match officials.

Lets be clear on this, can you list what are the reasons and evidences BCCI is providing to ICC, to change umpire. ICC is not so foolish to simply change umpire.
Then lets validates whether all those reasons and evidences are fair or unfair.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Everyone else here seems determined to drag in whatever past events suit their case (including you). Why do I not get that right?

NO, in the beginning of the thread, I have mentioned only current series and incidents in that. I was just responding to your post.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

And Indians only appeal when they are certain it is out? Spare me.

Come on, Pakistanis got fined for accessive appealing. How it is different from Gilchrist appealing for Dravid's catch.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

As for Symonds (or any other batsmen) why should they walk.

It is called gentlemen's game. Tendulkar walks out if he is sure, he is out.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

This test provided many examples of just how many errors umpires can make. As Symonds himself said, he has been given out at times when he knew he wasn't. Most batsmen have been. Why should they walk? Symonds was within his rights to wait for a decision, as was Ganguly in the 2nd innings. You walk when the umpire gives you out.

In the 2nd innings, Clarke had grounded the ball and umpire consulted Ricky Ponting what a shame on umpiring.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Second, you are once again showing you bias. I hear team manager Chauhan talk about ALL the decisions going against India. Excuse me? I can think of two blatantly bad decisions that went against us, and then there were the usual collection of solid LBW shouts we didn't get (we do get some, which are usually included in the 'bad decisions' category by the opposition).

Excuse me sir, Among 10 bad decisions, only one goes against Australia. This selective bad decisions raises doubts.

[Ray]

Sack Ponting, says poll

Melbourne: Almost 60 percent of respondents in an online poll have favoured sacking Australian skipper Ricky Ponting for his role in the racial abuse controversy during the second Test against India in Sydney.

Out of 54,435 votes that were counted online on ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ website, only 27 per cent responded with a ‘no’ to the question if it was right to sack Ponting for his role in the “monkey affair.”

The poll was in response to a column by Peter Roebuck, demanding Ponting’s sacking.
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Sports | Sack Ponting, says poll

This indicates that all Australians are tired of all this sledging that the Australians are so famous about.

Easy on the Australians, please.

Find faults with Ponting and the umpires.

Any comment that I may have made earlier is taken back unconditionally.

[Ray]

Technology the only answer: Shepherd
SIMON BRIGGS

David Shepherd has called for more technological help for officials after the flare-up in Australia. Shepherd, 67, whose total of 92 Tests is exceeded only by Steve Bucknor’s 120, believes it is unfair that viewers at home have better information than the men making the decisions. He has personal experience of what he calls “trial by television” — a media storm after an England collapse at Old Trafford in 2001 in which four wickets fell to unnoticed no balls came close to driving him into retirement.

“Technology has got to be used more,” Shepherd said. “We are judged by technology and people have started thinking that the technology is better than the umpires. That’s not true: on an lbw appeal, an umpire is better placed to judge whether the ball will hit the stumps. But perhaps the TV could help check whether there was an inside edge.

“Cricket will lose something of its spirit as more decisions are referred but ultimately it is a game for players, not for umpires, and something has to be done.”

Shepherd’s feelings are shared by some of the top men at the ICC. The incoming president, David Morgan, takes a particularly strong stance. “Increasingly there’s a view that we have to embrace technology more than we are,” he said. “The executive board will be looking at this at our next meeting in March.”

Shepherd’s main concern is that the use of replays and other aids should not add too many interruptions. “Perhaps the system where each team can call for a certain number of referrals could be the way forward.”

Shepherd is also worried about the strain on the umpires. “When I see things like this, I think ‘Thank God I’ve retired’. I went through the wringer with the Old Trafford Test and it nearly finished me.

“I can’t imagine what the guys out in Australia are going through now. Imagine if this had happened in the first of two back-to-back games: someone would have had to turn around and go back out there just a couple of days later.”
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Opinion of Shepherd.

[Ray]

Aussies crying foul, what an irony!
Simon Barnes
Steve Waugh called sledging ‘mental disintegration’

The present row in cricket has been brewing for nearly 50 years. Ever since sledging became widespread, it was always going to escalate to a point when two teams could no longer bear to be on the same pitch and the whole structure of cricket would totter.

The gloriously ironical part is that it is the Australians who are swooning like virgins and saying that sledging has gone too far. This from the nation which invented sledging, this from the nation which gloried in sledging, this from the nation which believed that sledging was irrefragable proof of national machismo.

It was Australia who coined the term sledging — meaning a remark of sledgehammer subtlety — and it was Australia who dignified it, with the declaration by Steve Waugh, the captain from 1999 to 2004, that sledging was “mental disintegration.”

Sledging is part of the game, Australians say. That’s true, just as kicking people in the shins is part of football and punching people in the nose is part of rugby. Both these acts are punished. But sledging has been out of control for years.

What’s said on the pitch stays on the pitch. It’s all part of a man’s code. Anyone who complains is a poofter. Thus, Australia brought this childish practice of sledging into cricket, with the result that all the other international teams feel obliged to do the same.

Last summer, England players threw jellybeans on to the pitch to insult Zaheer Khan. I mean, how pathetic is that? India were furious about that, too.

Australia led the way in insults and now, claiming that an India player used a racist term, they are saying that rude behaviour on a cricket pitch is terrible, rotten, awful, mustn’t be allowed. If Harbhajan Singh did call Andrew Symonds a monkey as a racist insult, it is pretty nasty. As nasty as when Darren Lehmann called the Sri Lankans “black c***s.” Many Australians defended Lehmann’s outburst because it was “in the heat of the moment”. The reason the row has got out of hand is not because of racism. It is because too soft a line has been taken on the practice of sledging for far too long.

No one in authority wanted to be seen to be picking on the Australians; none of the players wanted to complain because he would look soft.

Australia has long promoted mental disintegration; as a result, we are facing the disintegration of cricket.
THE TIMES, LONDON

Article from Times, London.

No one will dare call the British Pom. (British (English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh combined) people may consider some if not all irreverent terms to be offensive, or in some cases even racist. Though there is often a misunderstanding on the British behalf when called Pommy by an Australian; as 'Pommy' is widely known as 'Prisoners of Her Majesty's Service')!!

or does it come from "pomme", French for apple. The joke was that the pale British would turn red, like an apple, with sunburn when they landed in Australia.

Hopefully, it will become a gentleman's game that it was!!

I also saw a cartoon from an Australian newspaper that showed Symonds as the Hindu monkey God, Hanuman!

If the US has super heroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc, India is nowhere behind either - it has Hanuman!

Just joking. Now, don't go and report me to the Match Referees of WAB i.e. The Moderators so that I have to meet the Terminator!

[Bigfella]

A couple of points about the Times article:

Australians have indeed used sledging as a way to unnerve opponents. So have others. Of course, we copped most of the complaints because...we were winning. It was the constant whining of other nations that pushed the ICC to pass laws against sledging. For one of those nations to now get self righteous because one of its players chose to use a racial epithet is a bit rich.

Darren Lehman's outburst was made inside the Australian dressing room. It was not supposed to be heard by the opposition, so the idea that he was 'aiming the comment' in any way is absurd. Interestingly, his frustration was provoked by...sledging (guess it works). He got punished & should have got more. He immediately apologized. The ACB compelled him to go to counselling. The Australian team didn't deny, make excuses, complain or threaten the ICC. India could take a lesson.

No one will dare call the British Pom. (British (English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh combined) people may consider some if not all irreverent terms to be offensive, or in some cases even racist. Though there is often a misunderstanding on the British behalf when called Pommy by an Australian; as 'Pommy' is widely known as 'Prisoners of Her Majesty's Service')!!

or does it come from "pomme", French for apple. The joke was that the pale British would turn red, like an apple, with sunburn when they landed in Australia.

Sorry to dissapoint Ray, but neither of those is the origin of 'Pom'. It has been studied by historials of Australian English & it turns out the term comes from rhyming slang for immigrant: immigrant - 'jimmygrant' - 'pommygranite' - 'pommy' - 'pom'.
The term is not inherently abusive & never has been. It certainly does not denote the British as subhuman.

Hopefully, it will become a gentleman's game that it was!!

Fine. If you want to achieve that, make it a game for amateurs again. The moment you make the game professional it ceases to be a 'gentlemans game'. The notion that somehow Indians treat the game as such is more than a bit amusing. People only start deploying this sort of phrase when they want to condemn someone else, not because it genuinely describes how their team plays the game.

[Another1]

I received an email today in relation to this ongonig issue and thought it was funny..

Join the protest drive...

The Courier-Mail, an Australian newspaper published a picture of
Australian Cricketer Andrew Symonds with his face superimposed on Lord
Hanuman's body on Monday, 7 January 2008.
View the image and participate in online protest drive.
Just click and send an automated protest email.

The Courier-Mail depicts Australian Cricketer Symonds as Lord Hanuman !

[captain]

Originally Posted by Another1

I received an email today in relation to this ongonig issue and thought it was funny..

Join the protest drive...

The Courier-Mail, an Australian newspaper published a picture of
Australian Cricketer Andrew Symonds with his face superimposed on Lord
Hanuman's body on Monday, 7 January 2008.
View the image and participate in online protest drive.
Just click and send an automated protest email.

The Courier-Mail depicts Australian Cricketer Symonds as Lord Hanuman !

A read of the comments on that story will give the best indication of what the world is up against when religeous fanatics and lunatics of any persuasion hold any sort of sway anywhere.
A lot of people need to drag themselves out of their medieval mindsets, grow up and chill out more than just a little.

Cheers.

[Tronic]

Originally Posted by Bigfella

For one of those nations to now get self righteous because one of its players chose to use a racial epithet is a bit rich.

Bigfella, are you trying to tell us something about Australian law and Australian justice? If someone accuses you of something, then you are guilty; evidence go to hell?

[sun]

The latest news is that,

Symonds tried to defuse racism issue but Ponting refused, says report

Cricket : Symonds tried to defuse racism, says report | Cricket | Guardian Unlimited Sport

Anil Kumble seeks to clear air with Ricky Ponting

Anil Kumble seeks to clear air with Ricky Ponting - Times Online

Bigfella, can you comment on this.
Who was playing outside the spirit of game?

I have met many Australians who were really nice people to interact with.
In all my posts, my frustration is only towards Ricky Ponting and co, not Australians

[tankie]

Originally Posted by sun

:

I have met many Australians who were really nice people to interact with.
In all my posts, my frustration is only towards Ricky Ponting and co, not Australians

Awwww go on , make it ALL chainshakers

[Blademaster]

When I was traveling in Europe, I could count on one hand the number of times I would fail to meet any Australians in any place and mind you, I have been to a lot of places. Practically all of the Australians were nice and decent chaps.

Perhaps this cricket sport is making us more competitive and that competitive streak can "aggravate" our souls into doing something we would not normally contemplate. For instance, I love American football and am a diehard fan of it. When my favorite team plays, I take on a whole different personality and I become one of the most bloodthirsty people on the planet and would be a mass murderer every time I would scream, "Take his fvcking head off! Kill that son of a ******!"

[dave lukins]

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I become one of the most bloodthirsty people on the planet and would be a mass murderer every time I would scream, "Take his fvcking head off! Kill that son of a ******!"

With a name like BLADEmaster..yep, I could see that

[Ray]

[quote=Bigfella;446500]A couple of points about the Times article:

Australians have indeed used sledging as a way to unnerve opponents. So have others. Of course, we copped most of the complaints because...we were winning. It was the constant whining of other nations that pushed the ICC to pass laws against sledging. For one of those nations to now get self righteous because one of its players chose to use a racial epithet is a bit rich.

Australians invented sledging.

Crass and boorish behaviour is hardly laudable a trait.

Winning at all costs is hardly the way a game is to be played.

With this logic, would bribing the umpires and players and match fixing also be termed by the Australians as winning at all costs?

Australians are poor sportsmen. Not only are they boorish and abusive as they were to the Sri Lankans, it was surprising that a Prime Minister of Australia, Howard also commented as if he was some super wizard of the game! Thus, politics was also cranked in by this great gentleman Prime Minister of Australia.

When a Prime Minister stoops to this level to comment on a game, it is a sad commentary on the Prime Minister's worth to lead a country. A head of country so to say does not stoop. He has to just learn from his Queen, who is the epitome of grace and protocol and who can say what she wants without acting cheap, crude and of the street level. But then birth matters, right?

Have a heart, it is just a game and not a war!!

Darren Lehman's outburst was made inside the Australian dressing room. It was not supposed to be heard by the opposition, so the idea that he was 'aiming the comment' in any way is absurd. Interestingly, his frustration was provoked by...sledging (guess it works). He got punished & should have got more. He immediately apologized. The ACB compelled him to go to counselling. The Australian team didn't deny, make excuses, complain or threaten the ICC. India could take a lesson.

India did not threaten.

At least in one field India calls the shot.

Why complain about it (India threatening) if you don't want chaps to take sledging as an obnoxious and a slum dweller manner of behaviour?

Maybe that is India's way of sledging the cricket body!!

Sorry to dissapoint Ray, but neither of those is the origin of 'Pom'. It has been studied by historials of Australian English & it turns out the term comes from rhyming slang for immigrant: immigrant - 'jimmygrant' - 'pommygranite' - 'pommy' - 'pom'.
The term is not inherently abusive & never has been. It certainly does not denote the British as subhuman.

I am afraid, your contention does not gel, even though it is true that the term's origin is hoary.

I would not know if it is a racial slur or not, because I am neither an Englishman nor am I an Australian.

All I know that it created a huge fight amongst the English chaps and the Australian chaps in my school and we had to intervene before it got out and the Principal came to know. I am sure the word was not something pleasant! It however did get my curiosity and I found it to be taken as a slur,even though the origin was hoary.

Fine. If you want to achieve that, make it a game for amateurs again. The moment you make the game professional it ceases to be a 'gentlemans game'. The notion that somehow Indians treat the game as such is more than a bit amusing. People only start deploying this sort of phrase when they want to condemn someone else, not because the genuinely describes how their team plays the game.

Not really.

Even if it has become professional, one does not have to stoop to the level of a slum dweller with no upbringing and social standing. The very fact that it is professional and good money is being paid, even a slum dweller would be elevated in proper neighbourhood and forget their origins from the Billingsgate Fish Market equivalent of Australia!

The fact that sledging has over the year been condemned by all cricket playing nations is a proof itself that it is not favoured.

Even Australians have stated that enough is enough!

It proves that Australian cricketers are not representative of the population of Australia, who are basically decent people. It is the Australian cricketers who are the lowest form of Australian society and they give the Australians a bad name!