Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Yorkshire Cricket Racism Scandal


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1745
Date:
Yorkshire Cricket Racism Scandal


Yup. We agree.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 38403
Date:

Whilst I agree with the above and it is clear there was a workplace culture of casual racism at Yorkshire (my county ) this is also turning into a real **** show nowit may be the Mail but the latest allegations against Azeem regarding a 16 year old girl and text and WhatsApp messages dont make pretty reading - it is all meandering from one disaster to another and is in danger of undermining the whole situation that started this off. Disappointed with him to be honest as I backed him strongly and still feel they need to focus on the real issue here that could now get derailed

__________________


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1745
Date:

JonH comes home wrote:

... it is clear there was a workplace culture of casual racism


 I'm not sure that this is clear. What I think the reports have shown is that there was a workplace culture of laddish abuse.

Cricket WhatsApp group (my speculation):

Person 1: you're a ginger ****

Person 2: you're a jewish ****

Person 3: you're a black ****

Person 2: Boss, boss, person 3 is a racist!

 Boss: grow up and stop whining.

Person 3's text is put on the front page of the Daily ****, case closed - racism proven.



-- Edited by christ on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:41:24 PM

__________________


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2016
Date:

christ wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:

... it is clear there was a workplace culture of casual racism


 I'm not sure that this is clear. What I think the reports have shown is that there was a workplace culture of laddish abuse.

Cricket WhatsApp group (my speculation):

Person 1: you're a ginger ****

Person 2: you're a jewish ****

Person 3: you're a black ****

Person 2: Boss, boss, person 3 is a racist!

 Boss: grow up and stop whining.

Person 3's text is put on the front page of the Daily ****, case closed - racism proven.



-- Edited by christ on Sunday 21st of November 2021 09:41:24 PM


 Spot on with this.  A race card has potentially been played here. 

I am hearing alleged reports that Rafiq had very big gambling debts, there is also numerous photos of him online drinking what would appear to be alcohol (again, cannot be sure).

And yet another interview with Shahzad has been conducted, where he says he experience no racism, this is not reported, as it does not fit the narrative that is trying to sort. 



__________________

World renowned expert in Nordic tennis. 



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53676
Date:

But this is not a character trial

Rafiq might have huge gambling debts (or not)

But unless you're suggesting he's getting money from these allegations and that's his motive for making false claims, then it's irrelevant.

And it's certainly irrelevant whether he drinks or not.

His level of faith, failings of respecting any such faith (or simply his interpretation of his faith) are utterly besides the point - he could be the most revolting person known to mankind but could still have a very valid claim that he'd suffered racial abuse and discrimination. Statutes don't say you must not discriminate or use racially aggravated speech - unless the person is an utter pl*nker and then it's fine.

(Mind you, as before, I agree that chris has a point)

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19242
Date:

I am wondering what people think of the Alex Hales "black face" issue that has risen in the last week or so. It relates to a photo taken in 2009 which he claims was a tribute to a music artist.

I get that this is no longer acceptable behaviour but my question here is how far back should society go in judging past acts by current standards. Attitudes change and things that are unacceptable now weren't always that way. Certainly for me, the unacceptability of people "black facing" seems to be quite a new attitude to me and I don't remember anyone complaining about it 10-15 years ago. I am not saying it was right for anyone to do that, but was it generally socially acceptable at that time ? Perhaps I have been out of the UK for too long and my understanding of the timelines on these issues are distorted.

But again I ask the question, how far back do we go ? I admit to being old enough to have been brought watching the Black and White Minstrel show on Saturday evenings in my formative years. It was a highly popular show and I don't remember anyone having an issue with it. Do we now condemn the participants of that show too or do we draw the line at some point in the historic timeline ? And if so, when ?

__________________


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1745
Date:

As you may gather I am deeply uncomfortable with trying to apply today's standards to yesterday's behaviour, but some folk seem to think that there is no limit: castigating those from even hundreds of years ago for failing to follow newly minted conventions.

I am also uncomfortable about how minority opinions are universally applied as it is not possible to have a reasoned discussion; any contradiction of the minority view being deemed unacceptable.

I blame Facebook.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53676
Date:

Bob in Spain wrote:

I am wondering what people think of the Alex Hales "black face" issue that has risen in the last week or so. It relates to a photo taken in 2009 which he claims was a tribute to a music artist.

I get that this is no longer acceptable behaviour but my question here is how far back should society go in judging past acts by current standards. Attitudes change and things that are unacceptable now weren't always that way. Certainly for me, the unacceptability of people "black facing" seems to be quite a new attitude to me and I don't remember anyone complaining about it 10-15 years ago. I am not saying it was right for anyone to do that, but was it generally socially acceptable at that time ? Perhaps I have been out of the UK for too long and my understanding of the timelines on these issues are distorted.

But again I ask the question, how far back do we go ? I admit to being old enough to have been brought watching the Black and White Minstrel show on Saturday evenings in my formative years. It was a highly popular show and I don't remember anyone having an issue with it. Do we now condemn the participants of that show too or do we draw the line at some point in the historic timeline ? And if so, when ?


 It's interesting, and I don't like the fact we all feel we have to walk on egg shells and should shy away, so as you've asked....

Just in terms of blackface in general (i.e. now too, as well as before), it seems to me there's a big difference between dressing up as a black person to basically caricature them and effectively take the mick. And context matters - you can't help it, a group of white public school lads all deciding it would be a hoot to dress up as black people sticks in your throat...

BUT if I want to go to a fancy dress party and dress up as Stevie Wonder or Diana Ross, because I think they're great, I really don't see why I ( a white person) shouldn't be able to do so, and use makeup to make me look black to help my dress-up. Now, I wouldn't, coz it's not acceptable, so choose someone else, and you're an idiot if you refuse to make allowances for public sensibilities. But, although I realise that a black guy can't quite do the same if he wants to dress up as Ed Sheeran, I really don't see the problem in principle. 

So, yes, I don't think it's a hanging offence to do so now, or before.  

But I found the Black and White Minstrel show offensive from the time I first saw it in the 70s (and was quite young). The whole message was awful. Not that I blame the actors, as such. 

Chris' point strikes a real chord with me - it's the 'squeaky wheel gets the oil' problem - two people complain about something and it's axed - whereas the majority who liked it are ignored because they don't voice their approval. And - worse - if they do voice their approval - or, worse, complain about the others who've complained -  they are considered to be 'bad' people, bigoted, old-fashioned.....



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 38403
Date:

A great example of how long is long enough and attitudes changing - does anyone remember the David Walliams and Matt Lucas series Come Fly with Me? It was a programme I loved - really enjoyed it, maybe partly as I worked in airlines for a number of years. As they do with Little Britain a lot of the comedy was character based. They had several characters where incredibly racial stereotypes and black face was used - the Bradford Asian Despatcher; the black Caribbean lady selling coffee; the two Japanese Martin Clune groupies . At the time I loved that show and admit I laughed - it seemed a little naughty but at home we still mimic the Japanese girls chanting and the coffee selling lady . This was maybe 2010 Im guessing , not long ago. At the time not many people complained - but a year or two ago Walliams and Lucas had to apologise , said it was a mistake and theyd not be selling rights to other countries going forwards.

Was it racist ? Possibly . Does humour make it better - or context ? Probably . Would it be allowed now , around 10 years later? Definitely not. But should they be cancelled or castigated for it? Id say not, but I guess Im not the one who would have been insulted by it.

Hadnt thought of it until talking to Emmsie on another thread .

__________________
«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard