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

[Craig]

Lol Liam.

Quite a few people here suffer from insominia.

[iamdavid]

Originally posted by Craig
Lol Liam.

Quite a few people here suffer from insominia.

Why thankyou :saint:

[FRAZ]

Hakuna matata "Mogabe". The best solution is to hire Zebras.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Rik
No. Did South Africa get away with Apartheid?

No. Neither should Zimbabwe.

Couldn't agree more - but what effect would it have on the Zimbabweans?

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

[Richard]

I've said it many times - I don't think banning Zimbabwe from cricket is likely to have any effect whatsoever. What is all but certain is that the occasional boycott of a tour won't make a difference. I don't think it will make that much of a difference to Mugabe to ban them from all sports ie another GlenEagles Agreement.
However, there is evidence that the aforementioned played a part in deposing apartheid so maybe it's worth it. It would be a crying shame for Flower, Streak and co. as it was for the brilliant South African team of 1969\70, but sadly there are more important things than cricket.

[Slow Love™]

Originally posted by marc71178
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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by Richard
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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by PY

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]

Originally posted by Richard
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™]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
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.