Racism at Yorkshire CCC

[Salem Street South]

The problem that needs an open and honest discussion on what is racism? If somebody is disadvantaged because the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs it is pure 100% racism and needs stamping out.

I watched an interview with another Asian cricketer (cant remember his name) on the news and he was complaining that straight after the London bombings his team mates nicknamed him Bomber. Is that racism or is that a team thing. How many people within all sports have nicknames and how many of those nicknames do the people actually like. He did go on to say that the committee held him back and wouldn’t let him pray in front of his team mates, there’s the racism, nickname Bomber, in my opinion not so much.

As a country we are also spending a disproportionate amount of time on trying to tackle unconscious bias As this is racism. If we break that down, the person does not know they are being racist, are not intentionally behaving racist and do not deliberately disadvantage another person. I’m sorry but this is not racisim.

For true equality we must understand the diverse nature of this country, everybody is different. But that goes both ways. Mrs Cannybody, 80-90 year old that still uses the P word to describe her local shop or the C word for a Chinese takeaway is not racist. She just has a behaviour and language from a different time. It does not make it OK but when no harm is intended by her language, this is not racism.

Alex Hayes dressing up in black face was not meant to harm anybody. Why do people get so upset about black face? He was trying to be Tupac, Tupac is black, he blacked his face To look like Tupac. Are we trying to deny Tupacs colour?

As I’ve said, racism that is intended to disadvantage somebody, hold them back or is intended to harm needs stamping out in modern sociality. We need to call it out, but we also need to call out the professionally outraged who look for racism in everything.

Good post and I agree with much of it, but nicknaming someone ‘Bomber’ in that context is not ok in my view. Particularly if they are Asian.

 

[mickonline]

Good post and I agree with much of it, but nicknaming someone ‘Bomber’ in that context is not ok in my view. Particularly if they are Asian.

Why? They were Asian, they were Muslim. It was not intended to harm (in my opinion) so where is the racism? There are far far worse names used in professional sport and social circles.

 

[rentaghost]

The problem that needs an open and honest discussion on what is racism? If somebody is disadvantaged because the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs it is pure 100% racism and needs stamping out.

I watched an interview with another Asian cricketer (cant remember his name) on the news and he was complaining that straight after the London bombings his team mates nicknamed him Bomber. Is that racism or is that a team thing. How many people within all sports have nicknames and how many of those nicknames do the people actually like. He did go on to say that the committee held him back and wouldn’t let him pray in front of his team mates, there’s the racism, nickname Bomber, in my opinion not so much.

As a country we are also spending a disproportionate amount of time on trying to tackle unconscious bias As this is racism. If we break that down, the person does not know they are being racist, are not intentionally behaving racist and do not deliberately disadvantage another person. I’m sorry but this is not racisim.

For true equality we must understand the diverse nature of this country, everybody is different. But that goes both ways. Mrs Cannybody, 80-90 year old that still uses the P word to describe her local shop or the C word for a Chinese takeaway is not racist. She just has a behaviour and language from a different time. It does not make it OK but when no harm is intended by her language, this is not racism.

Alex Hayes dressing up in black face was not meant to harm anybody. Why do people get so upset about black face? He was trying to be Tupac, Tupac is black, he blacked his face To look like Tupac. Are we trying to deny Tupacs colour?

As I’ve said, racism that is intended to disadvantage somebody, hold them back or is intended to harm needs stamping out in modern sociality. We need to call it out, but we also need to call out the professionally outraged who look for racism in everything.

How on earth can you question whether calling an Asian cricketer ‘bomber’ straight after 9/11 is racism if not We have one or two posters on here that sit behind keyboards with white hoods on that would accept that is racism. Only Alex Hales knows his intention when he blacked up his face. Only Alex Hakes knows his intention when he called his black dog Kevin at the same time as he was calling everyone that isn’t white Kevin.

 

[Salem Street South]

Why? They were Asian, they were Muslim. It was not intended to harm (in my opinion) so where is the racism? There are far far worse names used in professional sport and social circles.

The assertion that no harm is intended is debatable. People died as a result of terrorism and, at best, it’s an insensitive thing to say; at worst it’s stereotyping all Asians as terrorists, which is plainly unacceptable.

There may be worse used but that doesn’t justify it, in my opinion. In my view it’s a horrible thing to say and I wouldn’t use it.

That doesn’t detract from the other valid points you make.

 

[mickonline]

The assertion that no harm is intended is debatable. People died as a result of terrorism and, at best, it’s an insensitive thing to say; at worst it’s stereotyping all Asians as terrorists, which is plainly unacceptable.

There may be worse used but that doesn’t justify it, in my opinion. In my view it’s a horrible thing to say and I wouldn’t use it.

That doesn’t detract from the other valid points you make.

I agree, insensitive 100%. Racist, not so sure.

My opinion is that racism is about deliberate harm because of somebodies differences. Was this? Only his team mates will know and without knowing the full story I can not pass judgement. Was he an active member of the social group in the cricket club. Active member it was banter, outsider probably racist.

How on earth can you question whether calling an Asian cricketer ‘bomber’ straight after 9/11 is racism if not We have one or two posters on here that sit behind keyboards with white hoods on that would accept that is racism. Only Alex Hales knows his intention when he blacked up his face. Only Alex Hakes knows his intention when he called his black dog Kevin at the same time as he was calling everyone that isn’t white Kevin.

And here you go. This is why racisim does not get discussed.

I mention this and I’m sitting behind my keyboard in a white hood.

 

[Deleted member 43869]

For true equality we must understand the diverse nature of this country, everybody is different. But that goes both ways. Mrs Cannybody, 80-90 year old that still uses the P word to describe her local shop or the C word for a Chinese takeaway is not racist. She just has a behaviour and language from a different time. It does not make it OK but when no harm is intended by her language, this is not racism.

The problem arises when you tell Mrs Cannybody why the P word is not acceptable and instead of saying 'oh right, I hadn't thought of it like that' she says 'ffs can't say owt these daus'. Unfortunately many people get really delicate about being told why it's better not to use certain words.

 

[The Red Telephone]

It is systemic and been that way for decades.

Syd Lawrence had a banana skin pushed through the bottom of the door of his hotel room while playing for Gloucestershire.

Phil de Freitas was told by the National Front his and his family's lives were in danger if he ever played for England.

Dean Headley was told he was soft.

Chris Lewis was told he doesn't bother trying as much against black players.

Devon Malcolm, who had destroyed South Africa at The Oval and was feted by Nelson Mandela in the return series, was told by the England coaches he was a nonentity and couldn't bowl.

When a coach had his car stereo stolen, the first thing he did was accuse Michael Carberry of stealing it, in front of the rest of the team.

Wisden cricket magazine referred to black players as negroes and said they didn't have the same commitment to England as white players.

This is before everything at Yorkshire came out, and is beginning to seep out at Essex.

There's your bottom line. Institutionalised racism for decades which had been ignored for decades until now.

It needs rooting out and kept out of sport and society. Not used as an opportunity for whataboutery to keep the status quo. It's how the bigots win. Not now though. It's time to get to fuck whataboutery and confront bigotry in all its forms head on. If that makes the apologists for YCCC uncomfortable, good.

In Simon Lister's excellent 'Fire In Babylon' he tells the story of Gordon Greenidge when in his second season as a Hampshire cricketer he and some other second XI staff were told to paint the creases for the start of a County game the following day. Instead the other juniors decided to pin Greenidge down and paint him with whitewash. Only when they tried to whitewash his genitals was he able to break free. Made furious by his humiliation, he grabbed a spade and threatened to break it over their heads if they came any closer.

 

[Salem Street South]

I agree, insensitive 100%. Racist, not so sure.

My opinion is that racism is about deliberate harm because of somebodies differences. Was this? Only his team mates will know and without knowing the full story I can not pass judgement. Was he an active member of the social group in the cricket club. Active member it was banter, outsider probably racist.

And here you go. This is why racisim does not get discussed.

I mention this and I’m sitting behind my keyboard in a white hood.

I’m pretty sure it’s racist regardless of his social and club member status to be honest.
It’s grouping all Asian Muslims together as terrorists, which is not banter and is not acceptable, in my view.

I do however agree with your point that context is vital in a broader sense.

 

[rentaghost]

I agree, insensitive 100%. Racist, not so sure.

My opinion is that racism is about deliberate harm because of somebodies differences. Was this? Only his team mates will know and without knowing the full story I can not pass judgement. Was he an active member of the social group in the cricket club. Active member it was banter, outsider probably racist.

And here you go. This is why racisim does not get discussed.

I mention this and I’m sitting behind my keyboard in a white hood.

I didn’t say or indicate that you were. Calling any person of Asian descent is blatant racism though.

In Simon Lister's excellent 'Fire In Babylon' he tells the story of Gordon Greenidge when in his second season as a Hampshire cricketer he and some other second XI staff were told to paint the creases for the start of a County game the following day. Instead the other juniors decided to pin Greenidge down and paint him with whitewash. Only when they tried to whitewash his genitals was he able to break free. Made furious by his humiliation, he grabbed a spade and threatened to break it over their heads if they came any closer.

Just curious as to whether mickonline would see that as racism or team banter / spirit?

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Deleted member 43869]

It seems fairly simple to me. There are two stories here side by side that don't have any impact on each other whatsoever.

I) The racist abuse that Radiq suffered is disturbing and depressing.
II) Rafiq is coming across as an unpleasant individual.

I'm not sure why the two need to be tangled up with each other.

 

[JL1985]

It seems fairly simple to me. There are two stories here side by side that don't have any impact on each other whatsoever.

I) The racist abuse that Radiq suffered is disturbing and depressing.
II) Rafiq is coming across as an unpleasant individual.

I'm not sure why the two need to be tangled up with each other.

Essentially it doesn’t matter that Rafiq has done some questionable things in the past.

Racism and discriminating behaviour in cricket has been exposed and individuals have been held to account.

It’s a good thing and hopefully will lead to a better future for everyone.

 

[rentaghost]

It seems fairly simple to me. There are two stories here side by side that don't have any impact on each other whatsoever.

I) The racist abuse that Radiq suffered is disturbing and depressing.
II) Rafiq is coming across as an unpleasant individual.

I'm not sure why the two need to be tangled up with each other.

Also the editor of the Yorkshire Post and the old guard at YCCC such as Arthur, Moxon and the head of PR are in each other’s pockets and have been trying to discredit Rafiq for months. They are having more success now than they had before. However discrediting him now doesn’t really make much difference to them. Rafiws testimony is done, has been largely supported by a raft of apologies giving it all the credibility. YCCC is under new management and are being monitored by the ECB who are being monitored by the Government to ensure change happens. Digging dirt if Rafiq is their prerogative and might make them feel better but it changes nowt.

 

[mickonline]

It seems fairly simple to me. There are two stories here side by side that don't have any impact on each other whatsoever.

I) The racist abuse that Radiq suffered is disturbing and depressing.
II) Rafiq is coming across as an unpleasant individual.

I'm not sure why the two need to be tangled up with each other.

100% one does not counteract the other and need looking at individually.
The racist abuse needs looking into and fully investigated to prevent any potential for future racism.

 

[Silly Point]

Also the editor of the Yorkshire Post and the old guard at YCCC such as Arthur, Moxon and the head of PR are in each other’s pockets and have been trying to discredit Rafiq for months. They are having more success now than they had before. However discrediting him now doesn’t really make much difference to them. Rafiws testimony is done, has been largely supported by a raft of apologies giving it all the credibility. YCCC is under new management and are being monitored by the ECB who are being monitored by the Government to ensure change happens. Digging dirt if Rafiq is their prerogative and might make them feel better but it changes nowt.

Chris Waters has been an excellent correspondent for the club over the years, but it appears he's too close and pally with the club to report reliably on this issue

 

[Cee Jay]

Chris Waters has been an excellent correspondent for the club over the years, but it appears he's too close and pally with the club to report reliably on this issue

This Chris Waters

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Silly Point]

This Chris Waters

You must be logged on to see media items

The very same

 

[I am Boss]

Think it's time to stop looking at this from an Azeem Rafiq perspective and look at it through the collective lens of those who've suffered. Quite clear AR is not the greatest person in the world. The problem is still as real

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

You must be logged on to see media items

Salivating. Absolutely salivating.

I haven’t even bothered clicking the link. It may be true, it may not. If it’s true then it’s disgraceful

But don’t, as a lad who admitted to being a BNP voter, think you have moral superiority over things that you or others did as a teenager.

 

[rentaghost]

Think it's time to stop looking at this from an Azeem Rafiq perspective and look at it through the collective lens of those who've suffered. Quite clear AR is not the greatest person in the world. The problem is still as real

Absolutely. Rafiq coming forward is going to have an enormous positive lasting impact on the game. He has his own personal failings which he either has already addressed or needs to but they are two separate issues.