Monkeygate 2 years on. How did Aus wind up as the bad guys?

Link to SMH story ---> Marsh reveals Australia lost their way after cool-it order

Maybe I'm just dumb, but how did Australia wind up as the bad guys in all this?

Selected quotes from the article:

Australia claimed a dramatic final-day victory against India at the SCG in 2008, but the result was quickly forgotten as a racism storm saw India threaten to boycott the remainder of the tour. Harbhajan Singh was charged after the Australian team accused him of calling Andrew Symonds a ''monkey'', however that was later downgraded to the lesser charge of verbal abuse.

The demonstrative on-field behaviour of the Australians, as much as the racism row involving Harbhajan, provoked outrage among Indian supporters and debate in the media.

--------------------------------------------------------

What must be noted is that the cultural differences and misunderstandings between eastern and western cricketing nations makes sledging a delicate issue; had Australia attacked India as aggressively as they did England in Perth, the consequences would be different.

But then, a couple of paragraphs later, from CA spokesman Peter Young

''What the public saw in Perth, from my understanding of the public mood, was completely acceptable.''

So we have to treat Indian players differently? Now I could swear that's racism. Pure and simple.

not abusing someone is not racism

Treating people differently because of where they come from is racism.

There seems to be a perception that Australia can only win if they abuse and sledge their opposition, as evidenced in that story.

That's why they're the bad guys and people don't like them very much. They can't seem to find a way to win, and come across as nice people at the same time.

well, the english should be complaining then, not the indians. maybe you need to rethink the need to abuse every opposition

Zat wrote:
Maybe I'm just dumb, but how did Australia wind up as the bad guys in all this?
.

James Sutherland = BCCI Rent Boy

I didn't see much of the Perth Test, but was there anything unacceptable by the Australian team in that match?

We lost.

No, in the Perth Test just played, not the one we timidly pissed away against Monkeyjan Singh a couple of years ago.

Oh.

It seemed all OK to me. Some words here or there but that was mostly started by the vile poisoned-tongue Poms and our boys were just defending their honour.

Zat wrote:No, in the Perth Test just played, not the one we timidly pissed away against Monkeyjan Singh a couple of years ago.

Siddle, Ponting and Prior had ugly looking words, Tayne had a sook when the DRS gave him out, Johnson was chirping throughout.....

England gave it back, though.

Being aware of cultural sensitivities is not racism. The Aussies use the term "little bastard" as a grudging acknowledgement of a tough competitor who is perhaps short in stature. Ganguly has been referred to in those terms.

For the average Indian that will come across as very offensive, particuarly the bastard part which will be viewed as questioning one's heritage and accordingly insulting one's mother. It is particularly offensive given that traditionally sex outside marriage has been a taboo for the average Indian.

IIRC didn't a lot of Indians claim that "monkey" was not a racist term?

Being aware of cultural sensitivities is not racism.

Yep. Two years later and I still don't get why the same thing doesn't apply both ways.

Indians cannot be racist?

Didn't I also read that on here?

Not the Brahmins anyway.

If the rest of the world realises and accepts that the Aussie team has a tradition of being foul-mouthed offensive gits, there will be no more problems.

Foul-mouthed offensive gits? F*ck you,

But you're telling me it's only Australians? The first time I remember seeing anyone offer the perpendicular digit to someone was Bob Willis in an Ashes match in the late 70s. And Botham and Gatting gave as good as they got.

And more than a few of the West Indies players gave as good as, if not better than, they got...

Maybe I'm just dumb, but how did Australia wind up as the bad guys in all this?

C'mon Zat...you know the answer....only W.A.S.P.'s are allowed to be racists. Everyone else is a victim.

I don't know exactly what was said so it is difficult to judge whether Australia over-stepped the mark. Cultural sensitivities should be taken into a account if possible though. Hypothetically if a cricketer sledged McGrath when he was still playing with something like "Haha your wife is going to die and she deserves it" then I think everyone in our (and I say our because Aus and England are pretty similar) culture would be absolutely appalled, but if in the perpetrators culture it is perfectly fine to say something like that, do you still think that it's ok for it to be said?

I've just woken up and I think I may have just been rambling a little and I can't be arsed to re-write it, but you can probably see the point I am making.

Cultural sensitiveness and perspective - had an Indian started this thread, it would have been dismissed as a sook.

farque off , ya sook

There you go.

furriner wrote:Cultural sensitiveness and perspective - had an Indian started this thread, it would have been dismissed as a sook.

Only because it would have been a sook.

As far the the Sydney test goes the racism claim came from the Aussie side Symonds accusing Bhaji. That did not cause the boil over. The boil over came beacuse of what happened on the last day where the Indians were unhappy about the appeals and in particular the grounded catch that Ponting claimed. What set the cat amongs the pigeons was the statement Kumble made with respect to only "one team playing cricket out there". Given Kumble's reputation as a straight shooter it got a lot of airplay and follow ups from both the Indian and Aussie press / fans.