From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:49:10 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

In article <1992Jul27.163939.21825@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@hagar1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.012711.24914@ecst.csuchico.edu> jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul26.224107.28574@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@helga6.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>>>In article <712179368@lear.cs.duke.edu> azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar) writes:
>>>>
>>>>	   The funny thing is that when English umpires make such
>>>>decisions they are mistakes, and when a *&!^&%^# colored umpire does
>>>>it is dishonesty. Racism never fails to amaze me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think it is racism, really, but it has become increasingly clear
>>>to the rest of the world that English umpires are every bit as ordinary as
>>>those of any other nationality.
>>
>>This seems to be a point that is frequently misunderstood at this forum.
>>The complaint is not against English umpiring, but against the duplicity
>>with which such matters are handled.  The standard of English umpiring
>>has nothing to do with racism, but the one sided complaints of cheating
>>do have something to do with colonial and racist attitudes.
>
>I partly agree with you. The duplicity is definitely the more fundamental
>issue, though there is some complaint against umpiring too. I do think,
>however, that the source of this duplicity is not racism but remants of
>the colonialist attitude. It is the same arrogance that manifests itself
>in things like the "New World Order". I feel that the term "racism" is
>used too indiscriminately to describe any kind of cultural, ethnic or
>group bigotry, even when race per se plays little or no role. In this.
>"racism" joins other devalued terms of our age, such as "terrorism" or
>"anti-Semitism". I do not believe in absolute meaning, but words have a
>life, and some violence is done when they are used without discrimination.
>Subversion of accepted usage is a function of art, but I sense a world
>of difference between creative redefinition and blind generalization.
>Of course, that is just my opinion.
>
>>
>>>                     For every Shakoor Rana, there is a Roy
>>>Palmer. And while Dicky Bird has been the best of umpires in recent years,
>>>David Constant has surely been close to the worst. Pakistan did not lose
>>>this match because of umpiring, but I can see us abandoning the whole
>>>crusade for neutral umpires based on a few experiences like this.
>>
>>Perhaps we are seeing this 'crusade' in very different ways. The call
>>for third country umpires was born out of, and has always been fueled
>>by, incidences such as these.  If we did not believe that English umpiring
>>was like any other, then the arguments presented by the English establishment
>>would actually carry some water.
>
>I completely agree with your last sentence, which was my original point.
>However, the call for neutral umpires by Imran and the BCCP was motivated
>at least as much by complaints about our umpiring as dissatisfaction with
>the umpiring of other countries. In a sense, we wished to neutralize the
>allegation that we won at home because of our umpires. My fear is that,
>as we suffer at the hands of umpires abroad, we might be tempted to give
>up and go back to the old ways. There will certainly be public pressure on
>the BCCP to do so.
>
>>
>>>                                                              I hope
>>>we don't. The temptation to get back at the "damned Pommies" must be
>>>countered with principles higher than those shown by the pathetic English
>>>cricket establishment.
>>
>>Once again, Ali, what exactly is it that makes the English cricket
>>establishment pathetic?  Is it possible that a misplaced sense of
>>superiority is a component of this pathos?  One of the ways that
>>we can counter with higher principles, is to point out this sort of
>>racism, no matter who indulges in it.
>
>A sense of superiority is certainly most of it. I'm just not sure 
>it is "racist". Also, all of us --- you and I included --- have a sense
>of superiority in some way. Of course, we do not think it "misplaced",
>but others might. The way to counter the TCCB is not by raising slogans
>of "racism" but by thwarting it strategically. As I said, the importance
>of TCCB in the ICC is diminishing. With a few well-organized moves, it
>can be put in its place --- the cricket board of one of nine test playing
>countries. No more.
> 
>>
>>And a little digression:
>>It was from Shamim that I first heard the allegation that the real
>>reason behind England's opposition to Zimbabwe's test status
>>might have been spurned by racial and ethnic concerns.
>>
>>But then I read the same thing in London Times, this time without
>>comment -- almost as if were business as usual.  There is something
>>very ugly at the heart of ICC, or the Times, depending on which side
>>you believe.
>
>The important thing is that they did not succeed. Zimbabwe is a test
>playing side now, and that's that.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ali
>