Langeveldt said:
Right, so colonials dont have the right to a comfortable life in their countries, because of the way their forefathers dealt with land matters hundreds of years ago...
Oh well, I guess that means 16 million aussies and kiwis, 5 million South Africans, not to mention 200 million Americans better listen to their conscience and get the hell back to Europe!
Okay before I respond, here's my disclaimer: I'm not a racist. I was just playing devil's advocate, and I will continue to do so because all the dialogue on this matter has really been one-sided. And please let's not let emotions get involved. Some of you seem to have been really hurt or made angry by what I wrote earlier. I'm sorry for that, I didn't mean to hurt you.
With that said, here I go:
Well those governments aren't demanding that those people leave. The Zimbabwean government is taking away the whites' farms and basically daring them to leave the country. I applaud their bravery for staying and I'm not in any way condoning what Mugabe has done and continues to do, but Zimbabwe can run their country however they like. I don't think cricket should be in any way linked to foreign policy. I hated it when the Indian government wouldn't let cricket be played with Pakistan while field hockey and everything else was allowed to be played and trade carried on as usual, and I hate it now. Cricket is just a sport, let it remain so! If you don't like what Zimbabwe is doing, write to your government officials, not to your cricket officials!
Comparisons to apartheid are unfair because in South Africa, a small minority of rich, powerful whites were brutally oppressing poor blacks. In Zimbabwe, the whites are still a minority and rich, except they don't have power. Heath Streak's dad owned a farm and lived a very comfortable life which he inherited while the land could be better used to feed thousands of people. Heath Streak's father inherited his land from his father and so on, and where did the first land come from? Stolen from the natives. I'm not a Communist, but why are we in a rush to protect the rights of these snobby aristocrats? The only people who used to be able to play cricket in Zimbabwe were rich whites who had poor blacks to work their farms. (Not slavery per se, but indentured servitude nonetheless.) At least with Mugabe's policy of more black players, poor blacks are able to play this game and he's removed its reputation as a bastion for rich whites who thumb their noses at poor blacks. And Mugabe did offer to buy the farms first. He's still a ****ing ******* but he's done something positive for the game's reputation in the black Zimbabwean community.
And was it just me or did the Zimbabwe team that just took on Bangladesh have quite a few white players? In fact, I do believe that a majority of the players were white. So what is this talk about Mugabe won't allow whites to play? Maybe he didn't like white players and hoped that blacks would eventually push them out, and even went out of his way to accelerate their fall from international cricket-playing, but until the recent events, white players did in fact play, and a white player was the captain. We don't know what demands Streak made to the ZCU, we only know what he told us. Who knows what he went in there and demanded? He may have demanded that his father become head of selectors or that his salary be tripled for all I know.
How can any of us, sitting in our comfortable homes, try to empathize with the situation in Zimbabwe? It is really messed up all-around, and I think it's best if we don't jump to rash conclusions about the whole mess and see how it plays out. Who knows, Streak and all may end up returning to the team shortly, or they may end up moving on to other countries to continue playing. But countries should still tour Zimbabwe. (Only safety issues or a direct ban from the government are satisfactory reasons for me to cancel a tour to Zimbabwe. And of course, being too tired to play is also a good reason!
)
are New Labour still allowing such a sell-off of playing fields?!
