Is calling "Monkey" is racism?

[sun]

Originally Posted by JBG

As to umpiring. As a long time fan of NFL, I say bring into cricket whatever is needed to ensure that the right decision is made every time. Delay? That is now a concern of cricket?

And if what is said between cricketers is sufficiently an issue, there are microphones there already to catch all that is said, as long as they are always turned "on".

You are on the spot, I agree with you

[bolo121]

Originally Posted by furkensturker

Aussies view the MF word to be highly offensive, above and beyond a racist remark. The chances are that if you call an Aussie a MF, you will be in a big fight.

But wouldnt you be in a big fight with him anyway after he's had a few pints of fosters?

[Tronic]

Originally Posted by furkensturker

Aussies view the MF word to be highly offensive, above and beyond a racist remark. The chances are that if you call an Aussie a MF, you will be in a big fight.

Freddie

Verbal attacks are almost always offensive. There was already a fight, it just wasn't intended to be racial.

[Bigfella]

Originally Posted by Tronic

Freddie, If you were to call an Indian a "monkey", normally, he/she is not going to assume it is due to their skin colour. "Monkey" is not a racial word in India; but then if it is in Australia, then I cannot say whose responsibility it is to educate the guests on which words are considered "racial". And each country will have its own; hence, sledging should defintely be given a second thought. If you are going to fight, then I would rather see two cricket players beat the crud out of each other with bats, rather then verbal abuse which can land up as an attack on an entire community! And about mother****** being more offensive, then it is beyond me how it is more offensive then a racial slur. Aussies have to decide, do they have a problem with racial slurs or sledging as a whole, you cannot have it both ways as Aussies are the masters at sledging!

I have a few replies to get through, but lets deal with this one first.

As has already been made clear on this thread, the reason 'monkey' was offensive to symonds is that the term has been used over centuries to suggest that people of African extraction are subhuman.

I'll be generous and allow that Indian crowds may not have been aware of this (I think they were, but I could be wrong). Harbajhan has no such excuse. He has good English. he travels the world. He has spent years playing in England. He has played against & probably with black cricketers.To suggest that he was unaware that the term would be offensive to Symonds is simply absurd.

Lets pretend, however, that before the one-day series in India last year he didn't know. Hell, lets pretend he was an illiterate from a tribal area where human scarifice is still practiced & has never seen an Afro-carribean person in his life. Still no excuse. During that one-day series it was made clear that 'monkey' was offensive to Symonds. Before this series began there was an agreement bewteen the teams as to what terms were considered so offensive that they were not permissible. Monkey was one of those terms specified by Australia. India did not specify 'bastard'. When Harbhajan used the term against Symonds Ponting could be seen approaching the umpire immediately with 2 fingers held up - this was to indicate that Harbhajan had used the term once again - as he had in India.

It is not Australia that is trying to have it both ways here - it is India. Australia would prefer to have no rules governing sledging, but the faint hearts elsewhere in the world disagree. Fine, but for them to complain when one of their players is caught doing the exact thing they have criticized Australia for is plain offensive.

[Bigfella]

Devgupt,

You have already stated that the Australians 'set up' Harbhajan & compared them to the KGB. Clearly credibility is not your strength. I wasn't planning on replying to your posts. but this one is so comically bad I just can't resist.

Originally Posted by devgupt

Who plays Cricket - Umpires or players? As far as I know any sport is played by sportspersons only.
What has made cricket popular ?- I think people come to watch the players play and not to see Umpires make decisions.

I agree that people don't come to cricket to watch umpires make decisions. Unfortunately, if we are to have every appeal adjudged by video that is precisely what they will be doing. Even a relatively straightforward decision such as a runout or stumping takes 5 minutes. Now we are being told that umpires are supposed to employ computer programs & hope that sound & vision match properly on super-slowmotion replays in order to make the most scientifically precise calculations. Personally I'd rather the men on the field just made a decision & let the game continue

Morever why are you so keen to allow wrong judgement to continue being given in game?

I'm not, I just accept that they are sometimes made. The game is about people, in all their flawed glory. Players make mistakes. So do umpires. If they go against my side I curse for a moment & then get on with watching the game. I don't seek to blame umpires for my team's misfortunes.

How will the use of third umpire degrade the effectivess of Shane Warne or Ponting. And if it doesnt then why not have a fair system of judgement?

First, the 3rd umpire has been used to make decisions for at least a decade. As that corresponds with Australia's domination of Test & one day cricket I think we can safely say it has made no difference.

Second, Warne has retired, so it won't effect him at all. Had the 3rd umpire been used to judge every appeal, as is apparently being suggested, he would have got more wickets via LBW & bat/pad catches. Warne is also the only player to have take 700 wickets without the benefit of having the rules of the game changed or umpires chosen selectively to allow him to do it.

As for Ponting, he has been the best batsman in the world for some years and is the best captain as well. His teams don't make excuses for their failings & they don't blame others when they lose - they just steel themselves fight harder next time. Some of us find that admirable - just ask Sourav.

Ganguly admires Australia's desperation - Breaking News - Sport - Breaking News

[Ray]

But then why did they make a hue and cry about this word monkey, if the did not understand it was MK.

MK, as is bastard to Australian, is a verbal crutch to the Punjabis.

The umpiring was atrocious.

Defeat or win is not the important thing. Fairness is!


Forget about umpiring!

Even a grounded catch was claimed as a clean one.

What about Ricky Ponting appealing vociferously when he had actually picked the ball off the ground?

It is a sigh of relief for subcontinental teams that the English still considers it a gentleman's game.

Forget about Australians being purer than the snow of Mt Etna.

I am not a great fan of this game - that is, all this international fixed up matches - but since I used to play this game, I surely wanted fair decisions. I have walked many a time before the finger came up!

If this match had been Pakistani and you lost, you chaps would have shouted from the rooftop that it was unfair and fudged.

Give us a break!

[dave lukins]

Brigadier, I can hear your blood pressure rising to quote from a well known author "hans and murgis"

[Ray]

Dave,

The BP is OK.

I really don't care about these results because it is no longer played for the fun of it.

There is too much of hype, crass commercialism, sponsorships resulting in turning this game into a hotbed of controversies so that more hook on and keep the tills ringing.

Imagine Woolmer's case. They still cannot decide what caused it. Creates curiosity and more people taking interest in these games.

Same thing with world football. Hooliganism and all sorts of shady stuff.

[Tronic]

Originally Posted by Bigfella

As has already been made clear on this thread, the reason 'monkey' was offensive to symonds is that the term has been used over centuries to suggest that people of African extraction are subhuman.

Not in India.

I'll be generous and allow that Indian crowds may not have been aware of this (I think they were, but I could be wrong). Harbajhan has no such excuse. He has good English. he travels the world. He has spent years playing in England. He has played against & probably with black cricketers.To suggest that he was unaware that the term would be offensive to Symonds is simply absurd.

1.) Knowing English does not mean that one knows what terms are offensive to the Australians; every country has their own style of English, including India.

2.) There is no proof Harbhajan used the word "monkey".

Lets pretend, however, that before the one-day series in India last year he didn't know. Hell, lets pretend he was an illiterate from a tribal area where human scarifice is still practiced & has never seen an Afro-carribean person in his life. Still no excuse. During that one-day series it was made clear that 'monkey' was offensive to Symonds. Before this series began there was an agreement bewteen the teams as to what terms were considered so offensive that they were not permissible. Monkey was one of those terms specified by Australia. India did not specify 'bastard'.

India is not crying over 'bastard', and second, still no evidence that he used the word monkey. Go over previous posts, he may have used the word "ma kee" meaning MF, which Symonds thought of as "monkey"; but anyways, still no evidence he used a racial term, you cannot say that he did on the word of few people who appeal for grounded catches.

When Harbhajan used the term against Symonds Ponting could be seen approaching the umpire immediately with 2 fingers held up - this was to indicate that Harbhajan had used the term once again - as he had in India.

Again, when the question about honesty arises, the Australian team is last one looks at.

It is not Australia that is trying to have it both ways here - it is India. Australia would prefer to have no rules governing sledging, but the faint hearts elsewhere in the world disagree. Fine, but for them to complain when one of their players is caught doing the exact thing they have criticized Australia for is plain offensive.

Thats complete BS. Look who walked over to Harbhajan and started swearing at him in the first place. And when Harbhajan responded in kind, Symonds went running to the umpires. What is that?

[entropy]

Depends on the monkey.

[furkensturker]

Originally Posted by Tronic

Freddie, If you were to call an Indian a "monkey", normally, he/she is not going to assume it is due to their skin colour. "Monkey" is not a racial word in India; but then if it is in Australia, then I cannot say whose responsibility it is to educate the guests on which words are considered "racial". And each country will have its own; hence, sledging should defintely be given a second thought. If you are going to fight, then I would rather see two cricket players beat the crud out of each other with bats, rather then verbal abuse which can land up as an attack on an entire community! And about mother****** being more offensive, then it is beyond me how it is more offensive then a racial slur. Aussies have to decide, do they have a problem with racial slurs or sledging as a whole, you cannot have it both ways as Aussies are the masters at sledging!



Thankyou! Precisely my point.

Can't have it both ways?

Why not?

So by you're way we can only have one word that is offensive? How does that work? If someone uses two racist remarks, do we decide what one is going to be changed to be racist and the other is going to be declared as offensive?

That's just nonsense. Two words that are racist or offensive are still either racist or offensive. They don't loose their meaning just because they are put with another.

Freddie

[Tronic]

Originally Posted by furkensturker

Can't have it both ways?

Why not?

So by you're way we can only have one word that is offensive? How does that work? If someone uses two racist remarks, do we decide what one is going to be changed to be racist and the other is going to be declared as offensive?

That's just nonsense. Two words that are racist or offensive are still either racist or offensive. They don't loose their meaning just because they are put with another.

Freddie

Then stop sledging altogether!! Australia is NOT making a big deal out of swearing and using offensive language because they themselves do it on the field! It was not Bhajji who went all out against Symonds; it was Symonds who walked all the way over to Bhajji and started swearing at him which provoked Bhajji to respond in kind. So, if you DO have a problem with sledging, then first discipline your own players!

[Blademaster]

Originally Posted by Bigfella

As has already been made clear on this thread, the reason 'monkey' was offensive to symonds is that the term has been used over centuries to suggest that people of African extraction are subhuman.

No one doubts this. What we have a problem is that Symonds was also guilty of doing the same thing by sledging and he was the one that started in the first place.

Lets pretend, however, that before the one-day series in India last year he didn't know. Hell, lets pretend he was an illiterate from a tribal area where human scarifice is still practiced & has never seen an Afro-carribean person in his life. Still no excuse. During that one-day series it was made clear that 'monkey' was offensive to Symonds. Before this series began there was an agreement bewteen the teams as to what terms were considered so offensive that they were not permissible. Monkey was one of those terms specified by Australia. India did not specify 'bastard'. When Harbhajan used the term against Symonds Ponting could be seen approaching the umpire immediately with 2 fingers held up - this was to indicate that Harbhajan had used the term once again - as he had in India.

It is not Australia that is trying to have it both ways here - it is India. Australia would prefer to have no rules governing sledging, but the faint hearts elsewhere in the world disagree. Fine, but for them to complain when one of their players is caught doing the exact thing they have criticized Australia for is plain offensive.

That's a load of utter crock. Who was the one that started sledging in the first place? Who was the one that started complaining? Australia on both counts. India only complained when Harbajan Singh was not given a fair hearing where he could present his side and the other side's provocative and offensive remarks were ignored

No, you are the one that is being hypocritical.

[furkensturker]

Originally Posted by Blademaster

No one doubts this. What we have a problem is that Symonds was also guilty of doing the same thing by sledging and he was the one that started in the first place.




That's a load of utter crock. Who was the one that started sledging in the first place? Who was the one that started complaining? Australia on both counts. India only complained when Harbajan Singh was not given a fair hearing where he could present his side and the other side's provocative and offensive remarks were ignored

No, you are the one that is being hypocritical.

Not given a fair hearing? He was brought before the ICC and gave his side of the argument and was suspended. It was a hearing by the governing body for international cricket, not some kangaroo court set up by Snowy on the tram, a proper legal hearing where he was found to be in the wrong. The Indian team then spat the dummy and threatened to take their bat and ball and go home.

Now my way of thinking is that when you are part of a international sporting body, and you play by the rules of that body, you must accept the rulings and decisions of that body, not drop your bottom lip and blame everything and everyone but yourself and sit and sulk in your hotel and threaten to hold the series to ransom because you didn't get you're own way.

GROW UP. I understand Indians take their cricket very seriously and their players are given almost God status, but when it comes down to it, it's only a game. A game that India plays very well on the international stage but recently they have shown themselves to be bad sports and point the finger at everyone but the ones at fault.

The fans need to have a reality check as well. What does it say to the rest of the world when a team has lost a series and returns to a lynch mob mentality public. IT'S JUST A GAME.

Freddie

[furkensturker]

Originally Posted by Ray

But then why did they make a hue and cry about this word monkey, if the did not understand it was MK.

MK, as is bastard to Australian, is a verbal crutch to the Punjabis.

The umpiring was atrocious.

Defeat or win is not the important thing. Fairness is!


Forget about umpiring!

Even a grounded catch was claimed as a clean one.

What about Ricky Ponting appealing vociferously when he had actually picked the ball off the ground?

It is a sigh of relief for subcontinental teams that the English still considers it a gentleman's game.

Forget about Australians being purer than the snow of Mt Etna.

I am not a great fan of this game - that is, all this international fixed up matches - but since I used to play this game, I surely wanted fair decisions. I have walked many a time before the finger came up!

If this match had been Pakistani and you lost, you chaps would have shouted from the rooftop that it was unfair and fudged.

Give us a break!

Fixed matches!!! That's a big statement, of course you have the proof to back it up?

Well, trot it out then, if a person who describes them self as "not a great fan of the game", knows FACTS, and that's what we're talking about here, FACTS, well there is something wrong with the information that makes the press.

I would have thought that for something as serious as match fixing to be common knowledge to people that are not great fans of the game, the media would have been all over it like a rash.

Please produce proof.


Freddie