From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Subject: Sunil does not read the headers anyway : -)
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:57:51 GMT





For those who are not interested in the subject of racism, I have included
a small trivia quiz at the bottom of the post.  Now no one should have a
reason to complain :-)





In article <1992Jul27.163939.21825@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@hagar1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>
>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.

Apparently we agree upon just about everything.  The few disagreements that
we do have are, however, far from trivial.  

You are also partially correct in that "bigotry" is a better word than
"racism" when refering to the attitudes of the Engish cricket establishment.
It is more important to draw attention to it, rather than argue over its
precise nature.

The use of the word "racism" is not altogether wrong here either.  It
is a far more potent and expressive word that any of the other euphemisms.
"Orientalism" and "colonialism" for example may be more technically correct
but for various reasons have not acquired the negative conotations they
ought to have.  Here in the U.S., for example, "colonial" almost has a
sweet ring to it, and a great deal of what is written about the "orient"
still comes from those who take pride in their "orientalist" credentials.
Most people who use the phrase "New World Order" infact seem to be positively
giddy with excitement over the possibilities.

You yourself are wading in some very murky water with this notion of
"subversion of accepted usage", which implies that there actully is some
agreed upon accepted usage of words such as "racism" and "terrorism".
Perhaps you can enlighten me on this.

Your accusation of blind gereralization is that much harder to stick if
you consider the fact that I was careful, for the most part, to mention
the word "racism" in conjunction with "colonial" and "ethnic", and mentioned
it as a component of the bigotry.  Racism is the ugliest component of 
colonialism and its bastard child -- the new world order.  George Bush,
for one, will be delighted to know that someone out there thinks
differently :-).  The greatest abuse of words such as "terrorism" and
"anti-semitism" occurs when they are carefully reserved to all but the
greatest perpetrators.  By associating racism with colonialism and the
new world order I am doing exactly the opposite.  I do agree that "racism"
is a tortured and abused word but it is far more accurate to say the race
plays a part in colonialism than to say that it does not.

>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.

I will take this as a friendly flame :-).  It is unfortunate that you
choose to see it as sloganeering.  To me it is a well reasoned argument
against the unfortunate inequity that keeps this great game from flourishing
further -- "countering with higher principles" to use your phrase.

Ali, neither you nor I have a seat at the ICC.  One way that I can 
make a miniscule contribution to thwarting them stratigically is to
to use this public forum to point out any inconsistencies in their
position (although, mostly I just mock them :-)). You, on the other
hand, are either working on a higher strategy or are planning to let
others do this thwarting for you.

>The important thing is that they did not succeed. Zimbabwe is a test
>playing side now, and that's that.

Welcome to Club Slogan, Ali, here's your complimentary cocktail :-)(-:

Peace,

----------------------------------cut here--------------------------------

trivia:

1.	What distinction does Intikhab Alam share with Illingworth?

	(I heard this one on the beeb during one of the earlier tests
	and asked it during one of the play-by-plays, but nobody responded.
	Oh, and I may be wrong about the Illingworth part -- could be some
	other Englishman. Heh, this is trivia :-).

2.	In the qualifying match against New Zealand Ramiz Raja scored 119
	of Pakistan's winning total of 167 (71.26%).  Can anyone think of a 
	batsman scoring a higher percentage of a completed innings in an ODI?

	(There might be many, I just cannot think on any right now)

3.	In the same match Mushtaq Ahmed did something unprecedented at
	this standard of cricket.  What is it?

	(the answer is in Lemming's book, but don't look right away)


j n a.

"Oh, it's a disgrace, to see the human race, in a raat race"
					-Bob Marley
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket