From: aam9n@hagar1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:39:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket