***Official*** Road to the 2015 Cricket World Cup

[harsh.ag]

You have asked me that politely so I will give an answer.

This is the google definition of racism
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"

I don't agree with that definition and regard it as being too narrow - to me racism extends to differentiating between groups of people based on race.

Why can't we live in a world where people don't comment on what colour skin someone else has? Why does someone's skin colour need to be commented on at all in the first place? Why do we need to be conscious that we are actually sitting next to a "black" person on the train instead of just sitting next to a person.

They say that young kids now days in multi cultural schools are "there" and we aren't there. Apparently young kids aren't even conscious of skin colour and just know the other kids by name and personality.

My second reason is that I don't think you can pick and choose between race based jokes and say that some are harmless and some are not harmless. All jokes about skin colour should be verboten on an Internet forum with people from around the world. If you want to make jokes about black people with your own personal group of friends I won't stop you - just don't do it in front of me.

Finally - if Smali's joke is so harmless - would you feel comfortable going into a rum shop in the West Indies and turning around and saying that joke to someone next to you in a loud voice so everyone can hear?

And if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying it in the West Indies then why feel comfortable saying it online.

Jeez Louis!

There are a lot of jokes you can't say at some places and can at other places.

Describing somebody accurately without inaccurately putting them down or pulling somebody else up is not racism IMO.

 

[Flem274*]

Smalishah has a history of posting something offensive and then covering it with a ninja or tongue smiley, and then if he gets called on it either passing it off as totally a joke or playing dumb. I don't blame Hurricane here for taking it in the worst way since I did as well. I read it and thought to myself "yet another smali post where he slips in the ninja smiley to get in a bigoted comment without complaint".

 

[uvelocity]

i found the "joke" inappropriate

 

[OverratedSanity]

Calling black people dark skinned isn't racist, is it? Don't think it was a smart thing for smali to say, but I don't really see anything bigoted or racist in it. I can also see why some people would take offence to it, though, so yeah, we can conclude that smali's an idiot. As if we didn't know that already

 

[Adders]

They say that young kids now days in multi cultural schools are "there" and we aren't there. Apparently young kids aren't even conscious of skin colour and just know the other kids by name and personality.

Wat?? I don't buy that for a second, they might not care about skin colour, it might not make the slightest difference to how they view a person (which is absolutely fantastic)........but not conscious of it??

I've heard Viv Richards and Mickey Holding talking about race, and they are ****ing proud to be black and so they should.........how does that fit with your theory if it shouldn't even be a thing?

You've never been shy to let rip on posters you feel cross lines so I'm going to tell you that I think you've crossed one. That was a nasty accusation you through Smali's way and I dare say he is feeling pretty **** about it........no one wants to be thought of that way. And I'll go further and say you probably thought you'd get support and back up over it and when the response hasn't been favorable you want to pack and leave, and insinuate that only your views on the subject are worthy??......

I actually think you owe Smali an apology.....

 

[grecian]

hey and I thought talking about England's World Cup chances was depressing......

 

[sledger]

I don't see how what he said is any different from making a comment about how Asian people are "slitty-eyed". Bit simplistic to readily eschew Hurricane's objections as well. The whole stink surrounding the name of the Washington "Redskins" NFL franchise is premised on objections that are more or less in line with what he's posted here.

 

[MW1304]

I don't see how what he said is any different from making a comment about how Asian people are "slitty-eyed". Bit simplistic to readily eschew Hurricane's objections as well. The whole stink surrounding the name of the Washington "Redskins" NFL franchise is premised on objections that are more or less in line with what he's posted here.

I'm bemused that the Cleveland Indians logo is still in use.

 

[harsh.ag]

It will be interesting to see what sort of pitches we find at the WC and whether they will they be flatter than they usually are in NZ or not. Hope they aren't. It will be fun to have a little mini apocalypse there somewhere.

 

[Flem274*]

New Zealand pitches stopped being bowler friendly over a decade ago.

Not a go at you but it might take another decade to convince people of this. We have to explain it over and over again.

 

[sledger]

Just ask Matthew Hoggard.

 

[harsh.ag]

New Zealand pitches stopped being bowler friendly over a decade ago.

Not a go at you but it might take another decade to convince people of this. We have to explain it over and over again.

Yeah, you are right. My memory gets clouded by the insane 2002 experience. It's weird how 2002 never seems like a decade away in my head

The recent ODI series that India played there was a very high scoring one.

 

[hendrix]

I liked the pitches that the NZ-India ODI series' was played on. They were flat, yes, but they had bounce and carry and pace. Seaming pitches can be fun for ODIs but I don't mind it being tilted slightly in the batsman's favour. It's just that there should be reward for good bowling.

 

[grecian]

New Zealand pitches stopped being bowler friendly over a decade ago.

Not a go at you but it might take another decade to convince people of this. We have to explain it over and over again.

Good luck with that. People still go on about England pitches being seaming, swinging nightmares, when it hasn't been the fact, mostly, since about 1997.

 

[Dan]

Jeez Louis!

There are a lot of jokes you can't say at some places and can at other places.

Describing somebody accurately without inaccurately putting them down or pulling somebody else up is not racism IMO.

Racism isn't necessarily down to discrimination and prejudice though; whenever you're treating a group of people solely due to their ethnicity ("The West Indies are dark horses, d'ya get it, dark horses? It's because they're black hahahahahahahahaha I'm so funny and a little bit edgy . Right guys? Right?"), you're reducing them down to a solitary characteristic -- and a solitary characteristic that has historically been stigmatised and used to justify terrible human rights abuses, at that.

You're basically drawing a commonality between them over their lack of 'whiteness' (given notions of 'white' are far more strongly entrenched than notions of 'black'). Not their shared West Indian heritage. Not their passion for cricket. Their skin colour.

Not to mention calling them 'dark horses' just because they're not white implicitly suggests that their blackness is directly correlated to the longer odds of them winning the World Cup. "They're dark horses because they're black". Well mate, a dark horse has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with not being good enough to be in the bookies' favourites to win, so you're making a judgement on their cricket playing ability just because it fits with your ****ty joke. That's arguably even more offensive than the joke itself, IMO.

 

[Daemon]

You are too young for me to respond to.

No ageism on the forum please. I have taken serious offence to this and have reported your post.

 

[Adders]

Holy ****, I really must be slow or something cos I just don't get this at all........

So when me and my missus watch the footy (AFL) on the weekend, and an indigenous player does something incredible...........and we comment on it as being a bit of "black magic", are we unwittingly, or indirectly being racist??

 

[sledger]

Racism isn't necessarily down to discrimination and prejudice though; whenever you're treating a group of people solely due to their ethnicity ("The West Indies are dark horses, d'ya get it, dark horses? It's because they're black hahahahahahahahaha I'm so funny and a little bit edgy . Right guys? Right?"), you're reducing them down to a solitary characteristic -- and a solitary characteristic that has historically been stigmatised and used to justify terrible human rights abuses, at that.

You're basically drawing a commonality between them over their lack of 'whiteness' (given notions of 'white' are far more strongly entrenched than notions of 'black'). Not their shared West Indian heritage. Not their passion for cricket. Their skin colour.

Not to mention calling them 'dark horses' just because they're not white implicitly suggests that their blackness is directly correlated to the longer odds of them winning the World Cup. "They're dark horses because they're black". Well mate, a dark horse has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with not being good enough to be in the bookies' favourites to win, so you're making a judgement on their cricket playing ability just because it fits with your ****ty joke. That's arguably even more offensive than the joke itself, IMO.

 

[Dan]

Holy ****, I really must be slow or something cos I just don't get this at all........

So when me and my missus watch the footy (AFL) on the weekend, and an indigenous player does something incredible...........and we comment on it as being a bit of "black magic", are we unwittingly, or indirectly being racist??

Yes AFAIC.

It's by no means discriminatory or prejudiced (which a lot of people argue is necessary for it to be 'racism') in an overt sense, but you are making a comment or judgement on the basis of their race. There's no reason to foreground race in the comment; if a player of white Australian took that mark, there's nothing less magical about it. If an Italian-Australian took it, you wouldn't think twice -- non-English European immigrants are considered as 'white' these days (notice how there's significantly less usage of 'wog' these days). So why do we have to point out the blackness of the player taking the mark, when it has nothing at all to do with their ability to take said mark?

Foregrounding and emphasising skin colour has been used as a method of social control for at least as long as modern industrial capitalism has been around (if you agree with David McNally; I don't, I think the history is a lot longer than that). Ergo, foregrounding and emphasising skin colour for a ****ty joke (be in 'dark horse' or 'black magic') is pretty crude, if not offensive.


FTR, not for a second do I think anybody here is a half-baked nutjob who's running around trying to join the KKK because he hates black people (apart from that Spooony guy) -- 'casual' or 'everyday' racism, however, is clearly a thing, and it has effects.

 

[Fusion]

I really am surprised that some people didn't consider that "joke" to be racist. Dan has given excellent explanations for why it is racist so I won't bore you with mine's. However, I do wonder if places with a history of bigotry in an extreme manner are more sensitive to these type of things. For example, make this "joke" in the United States and 99% would agree it's racist (not saying that the same percentage would be necessarily offended by it, but the acknowledgment would be there). It would certainly end the career of any public figure if they were to say it.