[Article] Is it in the Blood - From WCM
rsci
ROBERT HENDERSON examines --- from a cricketing viewpoint --- the
sensitive matters of racism and national identity
TWO letters in the May WCM touched felicitously (because both
subjects are long overdue for honest discussion) upon the
related topics of racism and national identity in cricket. James
Singh raised the question of discrimination by West Indian
blacks against Asains and whites, while Chanaka Wijeratne
queried my point in `Bad Selection --- a case study' (WCM April)
that the employment of foreigners in the England team is
detrimental *per se* because such players cannot have the same
commitment as native-born and -bred players.
Mr Singh asks `... why is the Nelsonian eye adopted where the
policy of the West Indies Cricket Board has been blacks only for
15-17 years?' The answer is twofold.
Firstly, those who control the first-class cricket of the white
Test-playing nations are drawn from the liberal elites which
dominate public life in England, Australia and New Zealand (or
are people who pay lip-service to the liberal elites' ideology
for reasons of expediency), with the result that only one public
line on racism is tolerated, namely that only whites may be
racist.
Secondly, none of the non-white Test nations has clean hands in
this matter, and consequently each has every reason to remain
silent. In matters of race, cricket politics exactly mirror
those of mainstream politics, national and international.
How justified is Mr Singh's particular complaint against West
Indies? Well, since the appointment of the first black man,
Frank Worrell, to the (regular) captaincy in 1960, the
participation of white and Asian players has steadily diminished
--- in the case of whites it might be truer to say definitely
ended. Geoffrey Greenidge was the last white player to represent
West Indies (in 1972--73) and, until the recent employment of
Chanderpaul and Dhanraj, no player with Asian connections played
after Larry Gomes's final appearance in 1986.
Nor is this decline simply at Test level. The current Wisden
shows no white and only two players of Asiam descent
(Chanderpaul and Dhanraj) in the Red Stripe averages for the
1993-94 season. The explanation commonly given by apologists for
the lack of white and Asian players in West Indies --- that
economic circumstances have changed, forcing Asian and white
cricketers to concentrate on their careers rather than cricket
--- is very implausible. Are we to beleive that there are no
gifted white and few gifted Asian cricketers from wealthy West
Indian homes? Is it to be assumed that every talented white
cricketer and most Asian cricketers in West Indies find a
worthwhile career outside cricket? Frankly, it beggars belief.
In truth racial and cultural discrimination by coloured peoples
has been the racism which dare not speak its name for rather
longer than Mr Sing imagines. It has also stretched far beyond
West Indies. How many non-Muslims have played for Pakistan, or
Tamils for Sri Lanka? Why do Indians and Pakistanis of mixed
white/Asian ancestry find it so difficult to succeed?
Nor can the white Test nations be wholly exonerated of the
charge of racism, for Australia have no Asian players in their
Test side despite a generation of heavy Asian settlement (or,
indeed, any Aborigines), while Maori involvement in the New
Zealand first-class game has been sparse. Doubtless in each case
there are good sociological reasons for the failure of these
various ethnic groups to participate largely or at all in
first-class cricket. But equally, the old, white-dominated South
Africa could claim good sociological reasons for the exclusion
of non-whites, indeed perhaps better, for there the power-makers
were a minority who felt threatened by a majority (in all the
other instances cited above, the reverse is the case).
The question the cricket world should answer, but almost
certainly will not, is brutally simple. If South Africa was
wrong to discriminate on grounds of race and culture, why should
matches be tolerated between other cricket nations which do not
have clean racial hands? Frankly, I do not think that there is
any reasonable, practial or unhypocritical answer which would
permit most international cricket to continue, so widespread is
the practice of racially or culturally determined selection.
Nor can I see things changing radically in the future because
the importance of the composition of national sporting sides in
mixed societies --- particularly in the Third World --- reaches
far beyond the games themselves, going as it does to the very
root of racial divisions and hatreds.
However, the cricket world should at least acknowledge the
existence of double standards in this matter.
Mr Wijeratne's complaint concerned my querying of the
instinctive patriotism (and its concomitant visceral commitment)
of the expatriate West Indians, Australians and South Africans
employed in the recent Ashes touring party. He admits that the
white immigrants might fall into my category of `those not
culturally English', but then goes on to claim that `such
criticism must be hurtful to the likes of DeFreitas and
Ramprakash'. Interestingly, he does not mention Malcolm, who
came to England at roughly the same age as Smith and Hick.
If I were to take the coward's way, I could point out that
DeFreitas came to England at quite an advanced age (around 10)
and consequently does not fall into the category of those born
and bred here. I could say, of course, I was not referring to
Ramprakash (as I did not in the article) because he *was* born
and bred here. But those would be weasel words.
To reinforce my point about those players aspiring to play for
England who were raised wholly or in large part outside Britain,
let me simply quote Matthew Engel in the 1995 Wisden: `It cannot
be irrelevant to England's long-term failures that so many of
their recent Test players were either born overseas and/or spent
their formative years as citizens of other countries. In the
heat of Test cricket, there is a difference between a cohesive
team with a common goal, and a coalition of individuals whose
major ambitions are for themselves ... There is a vast
difference between wanting to play Test cricket and wanting to
play for England.'
But what of those players raised solely or largely in England?
Well, liberals tell us this should not matter one whit. An Asian
or negro raised in England will, according to the liberal, feel
exactly the same pride and identification with the place as a
white man. The reality is somewhat different.
It is an entirely natural thing to wish to retain one's
racial/cultural identity. Moreover, the energetic public
promotion of `multiculturalism' in England has actively
encouraged such expressions of independence. However, with such
an attitude, and whatever his professional pride as a cricketer,
it is difficult to beleive that a foreign-born has any sense of
wanting to play above himself simply because he is playing for
England. From what, after all, could such a feeling derive? If a
player has such a lack of sentimental regard for the country
which nurtured him, how much less reason have those without even
one English parent or any of his educational advantages to feel
a deep, unquestioning commitment to England? Norman Tebbit's
cricket test is as pertinent for players as it is for spectators.
It is even possible that part of a coloured England-qualified
player feels satisfaction (perhaps subconsciously) at seeing
England humiliated, because of post-imperial myths of oppression
and exploitation. An article in the August 1991 WCM entitled
`England's Carribean Heritage' by Clayton Goodwin, a white
English journalist with particularly pronounced Carribean
sympathis, lends credence to such a view. Mr Goodwin argues that
children born in this country of West Indian parents do not feel
part of English society and, consequently, tend to identify only
with sporting heroes who share their own physical race.
Significantly, no white of Asian sporting figure supported by
this group is mentioned in the article, although many negroes
are. A few quotes will give the flaviour:
`Naturally those West Indians who came here as immigrants
have a nostalgic respect for their ``home'' region ---
longing for the lost ``good old days'' is not solely in
the white man's preserve. Their children, humiliated and
made to feel inferior in every aspect of their day-to-day
life, will relish the chance of using the success of
others sharing the same physical attribute [blackness] for
which they are downgraded to show, however vicariously,
that they do have worth.'
`You can't blame the put-upon black people of Britain for
feeling similar justifiable pride when Viv Richards and
his team, who in other circumstances might be regarded as
``second-class citizens'' like themselves, have put on
over the heroes of their detractors.'
`The ethnic majority [the white population] are not aware
of how isolated and shut out from the national cricket
game the black population is made to feel. That is not
solely to question why Surrey have included only one
regular black player, Monte Lynch.' (In fact,
England-qualified players of West Indian parentage are
well represented in county cricket, holding more than 6%
of places on county staffs, a percentage well above their
share of the national population.)
Having, I think, accurately described the generally resentful
and separatist mentality of the West Indian-descended population
in England --- doubters should cast their minds back to the
riots of the 1980s, take a stroll around Brixton, Deptford,
Hackney, Moss Side, St Pauls et al, and think of Haringey
cricket college, which has had few if any white members --- Mr
Goodwin goes on to claim that `surely nobody would doubt that
the players [England caps of West Indian ancestry] are proud to
represent England'.
Exactly why he is so confident of their pride is unclear. There
would seem to be no obvious reason why players such as DeFreitas
and Lewis should not share the mentality he ascribes to the
general West Indian-deprived population. At the very least, it
is difficult to see how playing for England could be anything
more (as Matthew Engel claims) than a means of personal
advancement and achievement for players of West Indian ancestry.
Of what else could they logically be proud if, as Mr Goodwin
claims, they feel excluded from and humiliated by English
society?
The reverse of the commitment coin is the effect the interlopers
have on the unequivocally English players and consequently on
team spirit. The common experience of mixed groups makes it
immenseley difficult to accept that a chaning-room compromising
six Englishmen, two West Indians, two Southern Africans and a
New Zealander is going to develop the same camaraderie as 11
unequivocal Englishmen.
The problem for the England selectors is perhaps similar to that
facing England as a nation. For 30 years or more those with
authority in education, assisted by politicians and those in the
mass media, have conspired --- in the sociological sense of
creating a climate of opinion --- to produce a public ideology
designed to remove any sense of pride or sense of place in the
hearts of those who are unequivocally English. It has not been
entirely successful, but it has had a profound effect on the
national self-confidence of many Englishmen. Indeed, perhaps
even some of the unequivocally English players lack a sufficient
pride in playing for England. (All the more reason to ensure
that the team is unequivocally English so that the majority can
infect any fainthearts with their pride.)
In summary, the essence of my case against Mr Wijeratne is that
for a man to feel the pull of `cricketing patriotism' he must be
so imbued with a sense of cultural belonging that it is second
nature to go beyond the call of duty, to give that little bit
extra. All the England players whom I would describe as
foreigners may well be trying at a conscious level, but is that
desire to succeed *instinctive*, a matter of biology? There lies
the heart of the matter.
Robert Henderson, "Is it in the Blood?", Wisden Cricket Monthly
Vol. 17, 2 (July 1995), pp. 9--10
Thanks : mathop and badri
Balakrishnan G Nair
It is appaling to note that such a blatantly racist article was published
in the Wisden Cricket Monthly. I realize that the guy who wrote this article
(Robert Henderson) probably will not read this response, but I will respond
to it anyway.
|>How many non-Muslims have played for Pakistan, or
|>Tamils for Sri Lanka?
The number of Non-Muslims who have played for Pakistan is arguably small,
however, I think that the percentage of non-Muslims in Pakistan is extremely
small too and that would be the primary reason for the fact that very few of
them(Anil Dalpat comes to mind) ever surface to the test scene.
|>Why do Indians and Pakistanis of mixed white/Asian ancestry find it so
|>difficult to succeed?
In 21 years of living in India and playing cricket in India, I have never
played cricket with a person of mixed white/Indian descent(of the first order)
So you better believe it - the British didnt leave as much of a mark
in India in *that* manner. The so called Anglo-Indians have blended in very
very well with the Indian way of life and it is extremely tough to distinguish
them from the general public either by looks or speech. A lot of them do keep
their last names, but that is about the only way you can distinguish them from
other Indian Christians. Agreed, there have been very few Indian Christians
in the National side, but the major reason for this is the fact that teams like
Kerala and Goa which have a number of good Christian players dont do very
well in the national level. There is one good prospect though, a strapping
young colt from Kerala who plays for Bombay by the name of Abey Kuruvilla,
who IMO is the fastest bowler in India at the moment. You may remember that
he tore through the West Indies in their rain-affected game against Bombay
taking 5 wickets. And you better hope that he doesnt get selected for India
before the 1996 tour of England, because he, a Christain by faith, would
defenitely put the fear of God into the hearts of the English batsmen.
Now, of course, if we were to believe the BBC, we would assume that India is
a militant Hindu state in which other religions are oppressed beyond belief.
So convinced were they in their beliefs, that they showed footage from
Chesnya (Yelsin's troops running amock) claiming it to be footage from
Kashmir. Even so, for some inexpicable reason, India's captain is a Muslim
by faith and we are bloody proud of him. So stick that in your pipe and smoke
it Mr. Henderson.
|>But what of those players raised solely or largely in England?
|>Well, liberals tell us this should not matter one whit. An Asian
|>or negro raised in England will, according to the liberal, feel
|>exactly the same pride and identification with the place as a
|>white man. The reality is somewhat different.
^^^^^^^^^^^
I dont like to interfere in other people's problems, but just out of
curiosity, Would a *white* Australian, New Zealander, South African,
Zimbabwean or whoever feel a hell of a lot more pride in playing
for England than an "Asian" or a "Negro"?
|>It is even possible that part of a coloured England-qualified
|>player feels satisfaction (perhaps subconsciously) at seeing
|>England humiliated, because of post-imperial myths of oppression
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>and exploitation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course! :) In reality, the English were benevolent altruists who
were taking care of us for our own good. And Adolf Hitler was actually
a nice person once you got to know him !!
|>Their children, humiliated and
|>made to feel inferior in every aspect of their day-to-day
|>life, will relish the chance of using the success of
|>others sharing the same physical attribute [blackness] for
|>which they are downgraded to show, however vicariously,
|>that they do have worth.'
Oh! Now I get it. Here's your logic in a nutshell: You treat them like
tripe. They resent you. Then you dont include them in the National side
because they resent you. That will defenitely make them feel better!!!
|>In summary, the essence of my case against Mr Wijeratne is that
|>for a man to feel the pull of `cricketing patriotism' he must be
|>so imbued with a sense of cultural belonging that it is second
|>nature to go beyond the call of duty, to give that little bit
|>extra. All the England players whom I would describe as
|>foreigners may well be trying at a conscious level, but is that
|>desire to succeed *instinctive*, a matter of biology? There lies
|>the heart of the matter.
No, Mr. Henderson, the heart of the matter is that England cannot produce
eleven test class white(Or "unequivocally English" in your words) cricketers
at this point in history. That is why rejects and discards from other
countries can walk into your cricket team. I hate to think of the plight
England would be in at the moment if it were not for the contributions of
Robin Smith and Devon Malcolm. As for not selecting English-born immigrants,
even if they are better than their white counterparts - Mr. Henderson, you
belong in the nineteenth century.
-Balky
(The Debo-Nair)
*******************************************************************
WWW Homepage: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/~balakris/homepage.html
*******************************************************************
When life comes at you with a battering ram, get right back at it
with a bulldozer.
The Debo-Nair(1995)
*******************************************************************
kulk...@coral.indstate.edu
>From: bala...@hp-6.cae.wisc.edu (Balakrishnan G Nair)
>Subject: Re: [Article] Is it in the Blood - From WCM
>Date: 13 Jul 1995 20:31:20 GMT
Just a few thoughts about some of the stuff in the article and the
following discussion:
- Roger Binny did fairly well for India, and he is of Anglo-Indian descent (
I may be wrong in this). In fact during the '83 world cup, some English
pressman tried to come up the (interesting?) nugget that Binny's great
grandfather was somebody from Middlesex (?) which is why Binny was doing
well in England. But considering the fact that the percentage of India's
population which is Anglo-Indian is small, I think Binny's being in the
team was pretty good.
- I wonder what the guy who wrote the article will have to say if and when
the guys of Indian origin in the current England U-19 team (Dawood, A. Singh
and Vikram Solanki) graduate to the senior team.
Prasad Kulkarni