Darren Sammy calls out the use of a "degrading" name for him during his time at Sunrisers Hyderabad.

[BacktoCricaddict]

41 minutes ago, MechEng said:

You cannot make things 100% discrimination free.

Can keep trying, though.

[zen]

On a lighter note, even if you are a gora, people in India still call you something    .... I look like guys such as Feroz Khan, Shahsi Kapoor, Rajesh Khanna, Rishi Kapoor, etc., so at times people call you chikna, or relate you to a white mithai or such names/things .... Many times, people are trying to figure out which actor you look like. How you look can depend upon actors they like. At times you are like Salman Khan, then a Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye, when a Barsat comes out, suddenly, you are like Bobby Deol, then Hritik Roshan, and so on.

 

When playing cricket, I used to get all red like a tomato and develop tan. One of my best friends was extremely dark so he used to joke that his color has a guarantee - no matter what happenes it remains the same

 

 

[kosingh]

Akash Chopra now claiming to be a victim of racism in cricket 

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

"Indians from India" can decide for themselves what is offensive and what isn't.

 

Its not for "Indians from America" or "Indians with an identity crisis" to tell them what they can and can't find offensive. F*** off with your imperialistic attitude.

 

Maybe "Indians" like you should stop promoting "desensitization" on the subject of killing animals and eating them for food? Now THAT is ugly to see.

?? you make no sense. bah

[BacktoCricaddict]

Wish I could say it as well as Sambit Bal does here:  https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29295844/south-asians-understood-colourism-racism

 

Quote

 Former India opening batsman Abhinav Mukund brought this to light a few years ago with a poignant post on Twitter about how he had to "toughen up" against "people's constant obsession" with his skin colour. In a dressing-room scenario, where the eagerness to conform is far more acute, and where a culture of bullying isn't alien, the compulsion to grin and bear these "friendly" jibes is even more severe.

It doesn't have to be. It might take years, perhaps generations, to reform societies, but sports can do it much more easily through sensitisation and education. In Ahmed's case, it was staggering that a captain of an international team did not understand the enormity of using those words against a black South African cricketer. Cricket boards and franchises now have elaborate programmes to educate players about match-fixing and drug abuse, and in some cases, media management. Adding cultural sensitisation to the list would be a small task but a big step.

Calling somebody kalu in the subcontinent might not feel racist in the way the world understands it. But even without the scars of slavery and subjugation, colourism carries some of the worst features of racism; it is discriminatory, derogatory and dehumanising.

 

[Alam_dar]

On 6/9/2020 at 5:42 PM, Norman said:

I will never understand this but why do they get offended when people (other than whites) call them black ? I mean yes I know terms like "Ni**er" are used in a condescending manner in the West (by the whites) and I'm against it for historical reasons but what's wrong in calling them black ? 

 

Why the insecurity ? It's just the freaking colour of your skin. Why the negative connotation for being of the colour black?

I believe that it is not offence if we use the term White/Black in "general" sense. But when we point out some "individuals" by calling them Kaluu, Sufaid Chamdhy, Chinka etc., then it is an offensive use. 

 

Even if it is normal in our culture to use such terms, but these cultural traditions are wrong. 

 

Rule is this that you could not give a name to 2nd person at your own, but you have to call him by the name that that 2nd person wants to be used for him. 

 

Did Ishant Sharma asked for permission from Sami to use the word Kaluu  for him?  I don't think so. 

 

Even if I use the word Kaluu for any of my Pakistani friend only while he has darker skin than me, then still it is not OK, but a moral crime, as he does not give me permission to call him from this name. 

[Alam_dar]

On 6/9/2020 at 5:45 PM, someone said:

And Sammy didn't get offended when he thought kalu is strong black man. Is calling gora also racist? Brown?

With this line, eventually calling anyone by their eternity will be an offense. Silly....

It is a general MORAL RULE that it is wrong to give any name at your own to a 2nd person. 

 

It is the right of only that 2nd person to choose a name for himself. 

 

  

On 6/9/2020 at 5:50 PM, coffee_rules said:

Black is ok, but not the N word. Kallu, kaala, kaalu is not appropriate, derogatory, may be not racist, but the tone is condescending. [saala] kallu [BC.]

In my opinion, using the term Black is Ok only till we are using it in general sense. 

But using the words Black (or Kallu) for calling a 2nd (individual) person without his approval does not seem right to me.  

 

When other people give a name to you, then perhaps in 90+% cases you don't like it, but you are compelled to live with it.  

Perhaps it is time that as civilised society, we have to accept this general moral rule that only an individual has a right to choose a name for himself. 

[Alam_dar]

On 6/9/2020 at 5:54 PM, Norman said:

So he knew already that kaalu means black ? 

 

Why the sudden outcry now ? 

I believe it hurt Sami even in the past too, but he was unable to protest upon it, as such a protest would have made him a laughingstock  in our society. It may also effected his future in the ICL. Therefore, even if it hurt Sami at that time, but he had to stay quiet due to these reasons. 

 

But the conditions are favourable for him to protest upon it today, as world is going through the movement of black people rights and how they feel. We are in better position to understand the feelings of the black people at moment. 

[beetle]

11 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I believe it hurt Sami even in the past too, but he was unable to protest upon it, as such a protest would have made him a laughingstock  in our society. It may also effected his future in the ICL. Therefore, even if it hurt Sami at that time, but he had to stay quiet due to these reasons. 

 

But the conditions are favourable for him to protest upon it today, as world is going through the movement of black people rights and how they feel. We are in better position to understand the feelings of the black people at moment. 

Sammy ...not Sami. Sami is pakistani.

 

I believe him when he says he did not understand the word at that time.

Quite possible.

It was extremely bad on part of players to call him that specially if they knew that he did not quite understand the real meaning.That was pretty shitty and cowardly too. 

 

But he should have spoken about it when the Pakistani captain was found using the word for the west Indian player during the match. It was taken up and he apologized.

 

Sammy should have understood it was a racist word and objected then. Was it the  PSL angle that prevented him from taking up the issue then?

 

He is done with ipl so is it convenient now or the blm movement makes is more convenient? Or will taking about racism in India's ipl make him more popular in Pakistan?

 

One thing that will come out of this is our cricketers will probably educate themselves on things that are no longer okay and get a bit sensitized  about  not using physical features to call people.

 

 

 

 

[Ranvir]

Kallu is an offensive term, it's a commonly used insult towards dark people in India. Goreh is never used as an insult to light skinned people. Indians abroad wouldn't like to be called darkie or Pakii by white people. It cannot be defended.

 

Having said all of that I'm pretty damned sure that Sammy knew what it meant all these years. He didn't speak out earlier because he didn't want to lose out on big IPL money. It's a bit like those actresses accusing Weinstein after their big paydays were over but never at their peak. Money always comes first.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Ranvir

[coffee_rules]

Did he know the meaning which he used it on himself proudly ? Or he was just playing along with the crowd without knowing the meaning of the word? I think it is the former.

 

 

[maniac]

I told this incident before  on another thread. My parents never raised their hand on me except on 2 occasions. Both times by my mom obviously.

 

When I was probably 10-11 , I was imitating my neighbor who had polio and he also probably had some form of autism in front of my friends . They found it funny and I kept getting carried away and kept turning up the volume of my performance. My mom saw what’s going on and she gave me one tight slap for my behavior.  In fact my dad who always had my back 99% of the time even when I may have been in the wrong, thought she was right in doing what she did.

 

I am not saying this to prove that my parents were model-parents or something. I would teach my kids  the same values and I am sure all of us on here would do the same.

 

So yes calling names  or mocking someone or bullying someone on their appearance/handicap is not Indian culture or it isn’t some western values to be respectful to another person by not bullying them.

 

My neighbor was called names too as loola/langda/hakla etc and he went about his business by brushing it off. 
 

That doesn’t mean he didn’t feel bad whenever he was called that or it is acceptable. 

 

 

 

 

[Ranvir]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Did he know the meaning which he used it on himself proudly ? Or he was just playing along with the crowd without knowing the meaning of the word? I think it is the former.

 

 

He knew it. Even blacks are racist to darker skinned blacks.

 

[Alam_dar]

11 hours ago, Ranvir said:

Having said all of that I'm pretty damned sure that Sammy knew what it meant all these years. He didn't speak out earlier because he didn't want to lose out on big IPL money. It's a bit like those actresses accusing Weinstein after their big paydays were over but never at their peak. Money always comes first.

There is nothing wrong if money comes first. 

 

It is not the responsibility of "individuals" to protest against the evil and bring their future and money at risk,  but it is the responsibility of a society collectively to fight against the wrong things. Sadly, we failed as society. 

[Straight Drive]

Most of the cricketers are below 30. Not all sense in this world is knocked in their brains. Mistakes do happen at those ages. A lot of mistakes are unintentional. Being respectful and socially correct may come at later ages to some people. But if some aged person does those mistakes then it is shameful.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

On 6/10/2020 at 1:18 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

In my experience, yes.  Do I have any data?  No. 

 

But again, is it something to get worked up about?  For me, yes.  I have seen social discrimination - even with families among siblings - based on skin colour and antiquated notions of skin colour being an indicator of physical well-being.  No one is asking for punitive measures - only education the to open people's minds to ideas that dissociate specific skin colours from ability and success, and maybe darker skin will not be construed as less attractive. 

On 6/10/2020 at 3:29 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

Can keep trying, though.

I'm not gonna give any specific responses, because now we're only repeating ourselves.

 

But I have to ask - and please don't take this personally - but as a bio-chemistry professor, of all people - how the f*** can you even think like this?

 

I can understand the desire for greater 'morality', and for greater 'cohesion' within a skin-color based caste system (like what exists in America). But you're veering into a dangerous territory where discrimination of any kind resembles thought crime. You are ignoring that discrimination is biological instinct, and the desire to find an 'attractive' and objectively superior partner is visible across the entire spectrum of nature. In short, to discriminate, is to be human. You discriminate when you're picking cereals at your local supermarket. Life is about choices, and valuing one option over another is fundamental to human existence.

 

Your solution of providing better 'education' - while not punitive - amounts to little less than shaming, and discourages discrimination for no good reason. Is a human being better off if he's less discriminatory? From a scientific point of view - and feel free to correct me - the ability to discriminate inspires a quest for rationality through decision-making considerate of one's individual survival. How on earth do humans survive as a species if they are unable to freely pick and choose their partners, their friends, their co-workers? If they are unable to distinguish beautiful from ugly? If everyone is beautiful, then nobody is beautiful.

 

Does your 'disassociation' of competence from visible physical traits - whether it be skin color, height, or weight - allow for more rational and improved decision making? All you're really doing is erasing data points. Is consideration of heritage also discriminatory? Is it wrong for me to view the son of a bio-chemist as potentially more competent in the field than the son of a plumber? Am i wrong for negatively perceiving baldness and obesity as indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle? I'll be honest - i have always discriminated against short, fat and bald people. How do i benefit from your education?

 

It might seem minor, but if you give up the tiniest of ground...then where does it lead? Shall we call charles darwin a racist?

 

At some point in future, the elites might as well give children full frontal lobotomies to prevent them from discriminating. Ultimately, this will serve the purpose of creating an intellectually comatose, incapacitated society where people do what they're told and never say or think anything potentially disruptive to state-sanctioned cohesion.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao