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

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by Rik
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]

Originally posted by Slow Love™
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]

Originally posted by anzac
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™]

Originally posted by Richard
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.

[16 tins of Spam]

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]

Originally posted by Richard
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 :!( :!(

[Slow Love™]

Originally posted by Richard
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.

The ludicrousness of this sentence is breathtaking. Richard, I still don't think you're grasping what actually entails a moral principle, because you keep coming back to the "practicality" of any given stance defining it's moral value.

To give a quick, simple example: Every week, at a large village, a group of men visit with trinkets and baubles. They sell these goods at a market, and make loads of money. It is known by many at the village that these goods are robbed from others and sometimes taken upon pain of death.

Two people in the village choose not to buy the goods, and refuse on principle not to participate in such a ghoulish and exploitative commerce. Their abstention is barely noticed, and nobody pays any attention to their protests - the goods are highly valued, and these guys are here every Saturday, so why not?

The fact that their protest is ineffectual and doesn't seem to intervene in whether or not these marauders will visit each week has absolutely nothing to do with either the validity of their moral stance or that of the other village buyers. It cannot.

This is not designed to be an absolute analogy to the effectiveness of protest regarding Zimbabwe (in fact, IMO, protests about that issue could actually result in change), nor to illustrate the "crimes" the Mugabe regime is guilty of - only to demonstrate that what you say defines the validity of a moral stance simply does not. In no way are those abstainers' moral concerns (both with their own actions, and those of their buying compatriots) "unfounded" because they're not making a difference.

Make sense?

[Craig]

If one country isnt going to go, then all countries shouldnt go.

It is all right for a team full of black cricketers (ie WI) to tour there and no one mentions anything, yet a team full of white cricketers get presserised not to go. Spot any double standards?

If England doesnt go, niether should India, Pakistan, WI, South Africa etc.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's rather silly. It's not essentially a black/white issue. It's a World v Mugabe issue. Whether Mugabe was white, red, blue or green the World would oppose him and his dictatorship.

Each cricketing/governing body has the right to decide how they wish to approach the situation based on their moral stance on the issue. Some may not see the benefits in boycotting, whilst others who have higher international allegiances, image and associations, may see it otherwise.

It's a morality issue, but not one based on colour. It's based on human rights and the desire to preserve a decent standard of life.

[Craig]

But if it is a world issue, then should all Cricketing Boards get together and help boycott the ZCU?

[Richard]

Originally posted by Slow Love™
The ludicrousness of this sentence is breathtaking. Richard, I still don't think you're grasping what actually entails a moral principle, because you keep coming back to the "practicality" of any given stance defining it's moral value.

To give a quick, simple example: Every week, at a large village, a group of men visit with trinkets and baubles. They sell these goods at a market, and make loads of money. It is known by many at the village that these goods are robbed from others and sometimes taken upon pain of death.

Two people in the village choose not to buy the goods, and refuse on principle not to participate in such a ghoulish and exploitative commerce. Their abstention is barely noticed, and nobody pays any attention to their protests - the goods are highly valued, and these guys are here every Saturday, so why not?

The fact that their protest is ineffectual and doesn't seem to intervene in whether or not these marauders will visit each week has absolutely nothing to do with either the validity of their moral stance or that of the other village buyers. It cannot.

This is not designed to be an absolute analogy to the effectiveness of protest regarding Zimbabwe (in fact, IMO, protests about that issue could actually result in change), nor to illustrate the "crimes" the Mugabe regime is guilty of - only to demonstrate that what you say defines the validity of a moral stance simply does not. In no way are those abstainers' moral concerns (both with their own actions, and those of their buying compatriots) "unfounded" because they're not making a difference.

Make sense?

IMO the people in the village not buying the goods are a disgrace - there are plenty of things they could do to stop the marauders.
Like dispose of the them, for instance.:rolleyes:
Disposing of Mugabe is altogether rather more difficult.