Am I being a bit over-sensitive ?

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Teatime FatCat

Wasn't the tone of the article, "Why I hate English Cricket" rather than "Why I hate the English" - or do the two melt into one for most when he attacks personalities?

The opinions expressed in the article actually have very little to do with the way the English play their cricket. It is an expression of one man's social and historical views, which he has every right to hold, but I cannot see any reason why cricinfo should have published this. It contributes nothing towards intelligent debate of cricketing matters, and has no relevance to the England team currently touring India.

I'm glad to say that the insensitive and inappropriate comments in this article, which has appeared in a reputed magazine and website, show this forum in a very good light. We have a lot of appreciation for each other's nations and teams, and we have many insightful and interesting discussions. We are able to criticise appropriately, and praise appropriately. There may be members of this board who share the views of the article's author, but know when it is right to voice those views, and when it is best to moderate them or keep quiet. We should be proud of the spirit and intelligence of the people who contribute to our forum, and leave the likes of this article's author to play out their little frustrations elsewhere.

[Zainub]

It isn't bad editorial choice by any stretch of imagination Teatime. With all the bla bla bla I've hard about so called freedom of speech in Europe and beyond of late, I'm surprised so many people that have found the article offensive (or "a bad editorial choice" as you put it), far more offensive things have been published in newspapers elsewhere (and on far more sensitive subjects then this, and which were in my view far more poor ediorial choices then this) and yet people (and lots of people) have defended them in the name of freedom of speech so everyone might as well bare with this.

As far as I'm concerned Dileep is an accomplished writer, an excellent one as a matter of fact, and he is perfectly entitled to his views. The argument that the article doesn't contribute to cricket debate isn't true either, as it allows for plenty of discussion on racism in cricket, which is a very relevant and important topic. It is actually are a very well written clearly put article, and hence miles different from what Waseem said, which was a collection of poorly argued rants. If anything it is dissapointing that so many people have seen it as racially offensive.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Zainub

The argument that the article doesn't contribute to cricket debate isn't true either, as it allows for plenty of discussion on racism in cricket, which is a very relevant and important topic.

Yes, it is a very important topic. However, the examples Dileep gives are not relevant to the current situation. Why talk about Botham's harstyle or football crowds in the 1980s? England is a very different country today than in the 1980s (despite our press fuelling racial divides) People are now much more accepting of different races and cultures. There are legitimate debates to be had about racism in cricket - from comments by players (e.g. Lehmann), attitudes of umpires (e.g. Hair), to the balance of power within the ICC. But generally, cricket brings people of different races, from different continents, together, and helps people to learn about other cultures, to understand them, and ultimately to accept and embrace them in a positive way. It's sad that Dileep seems to have closed himself off to this possibilty.

Originally Posted by Zainub

If anything it is dissapointing that so many people have seen it as racially offensive.

I'm not offended by it, and I'm sure most people who read will feel disappointment rather than offence - disappointment that a writer should choose to put forward such a negative viewpoint, based on the world as it was 20-30 years ago, and ignore the many progressive steps taken since then - black and Asian players gaining the respect and credit they deserve; the return of South Africa, with an increasingly multi-racial team; the spread of cricket, with Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Kenya playing top-level international games.

There are still issues to be dealt with, and probably always will be. But it's important that we recognise the goodwill generated by cricket. In today's world, when people waging war and spreading intolerance and hatred get most of the headlines, it's important that England and Australia play cricket matches with Pakistan and India, that the players can treat each other with respect. Most people in the world want to get on with other people, but this is a voice that doesn't get heard often enough. Cricket can raise the profile of the friendship and respect that exists across continents, religions, races. Dileep has a right to express his views, but I would much rather talk about the positives.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Zainub

It isn't bad editorial choice by any stretch of imagination Teatime. With all the bla bla bla I've hard about so called freedom of speech in Europe and beyond of late, I'm surprised so many people that have found the article offensive (or "a bad editorial choice" as you put it), far more offensive things have been published in newspapers elsewhere (and on far more sensitive subjects then this, and which were in my view far more poor ediorial choices then this) and yet people (and lots of people) have defended them in the name of freedom of speech so everyone might as well bare with this.

With all due respect, comparing the two issues is non-sensical. No one here has said that by posting a covertly racist article he should be dragged into the streets and beaten to death, they're just saying they disagree with his article or feel it has no real value. No one here has called for a boycott of all things Indian or burnt down an embassy or called for the death of unrelated people. If anything it's a perfect example of freedom of speech, he's free to post such an article, and we're free to lose all respect for him and his organisation for printing such an article.

As far as I'm concerned Dileep is an accomplished writer, an excellent one as a matter of fact, and he is perfectly entitled to his views. The argument that the article doesn't contribute to cricket debate isn't true either, as it allows for plenty of discussion on racism in cricket, which is a very relevant and important topic. It is actually are a very well written clearly put article, and hence miles different from what Waseem said, which was a collection of poorly argued rants. If anything it is dissapointing that so many people have seen it as racially offensive.

I don't feel it is well written, as what is the point of the article? his only point is that he hates the english, well that's interesting but why should i care that he hates the english? what useful purpose is there in knowing that he hates us? how is it relevant to anything? If the head of the ICC wrote an article saying he hated the english then it would become more relevant and thefore an article with purpose, but for some nobody to write it, it just becomes a racist rant.

If he wrote an article about racism in cricket, or racism in the english game then fair enough, it would become relevant, but again he hasn't, it's barely even about that as there's only one section of the entire article that mentions racism. He could have summed up the entire article with "I hate the english" and nothing would have been missed from the 'debate'. It was completely biased, if it was meant to be a debate or discussion then there would have been counter-points such as the fact the previous england captain was of indian origins or the fact that a high percentage of the current county staffs are asian and a lot of the up and coming under-19 and A-team players for england are of asian origin and that this represents a shift in attitudes amongst the english cricket fraternity. But, the fact that none of these things are even mentioned emphasises the conclusion that it is nothing more than an anti-english rant covered up by anecdotes and effective "i'm not racist but.." style comments such as the football support reference.

[DaveGillespie]

With respect Zanuib, how does saying he would rather watch Greg Chappell than Chris Tavare promote a debate on racism in cricket?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Very true. I have to say Victor that you have summed up pretty much everything I could have said, and arguably slightly better.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I'm not offended by it, and I'm sure most people who read will feel disappointment rather than offense - disappointment that a writer should choose to put forward such a negative viewpoint,.

Hit the nail on the head, I did not consider it offensive or racist or bad editorial. I did think it was very very sad that someone who lives in the UK and enjoys much of what the UK has to offer should have such a negative and backward thinking viewpoint.

As a student of History I know that I am not proud of large parts of English history, but I am 100% English and proud of it..

But keep in mind that within our history there are also men of the caliber of Wilberforce and Shaftsbury who fought against so much of the prevailing culture to do the right thing.