Monkey v Bastard - A matter of interpretation?

[TV Ted Ellery]

Firstly I'll preface my comments by saying that I abhor the antics of the Aussie cricket team as much as anybody else. Whatsmore, I don't think that there was sufficient grounds upon the evidence put forward to find Singh guilty of making the 'monkey' slur.

That aside, I was surprised to hear the comments of Raj Natarajan, United Indian Association President who evoked the deity-connations of the word 'monkey' in Hindu culture to contend that it should not be construed as a racial slur.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23017496-5003413,00.html

“Considering that the “Monkey God” is one of the revered idols of Hindu mythology and worshipped by millions, it is surprising it was considered a racist term. Even more surprising is that the word “monkey” is considered by the match referee serious enough to slap a three match ban on Harbhajan Singh. Many other more unsavoury words exchanged on the field go un-noticed.
“The UIA and its members feel that the Australian team has behaved in an un-sporting manner which has made the second test between India and Australia a poor example of the game.

He implies that we should deduce the meaning of the word monkey from the culture perspective of the person who made the comment. Obviously he chooses to overlook the sensibilities of the person to whom the jibe was directed, the fact that the comment was made in Australia and most importantly the recent controversy involving crowds making monkey noises at black sports people: Symonds in India and Eto'o here in Spain.

Moving now to the word 'bastard', the Indian team manager Chetan Chauhan expains why it carries such gravity as an insult in Indian culture:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/crick...ny-verbal-abuse/2008/01/07/1199554570963.html

"This is a serious term. It has a lot of bad meanings back in India and we are very sensitive about these issues," Chauhan said.

"In India, we do not have children without getting married. It is a taboo and it is not accepted in the society. A child born out of wedlock is considered to be very low and an outcast. We don't use this word at all, only when you really want to abuse somebody in a derogatory manner.

"First, Dhoni informed me and then Anil Kumble also confirmed that the word was used and it was in full hearing distance. Ricky Ponting heard that and checked Brad Hogg because he understood the meaning."

Now we are asked to understand the connotations of the slur not from the perpertrator's perspective but rather that of the recipient. Further, Ponting anticipated that bastard might be interpreted differently by Kumble and Dhoni and accordingly 'checked' Brad Hogg. Above, Raj Natarajan does not appear to consider that Singh should contemplate whether 'monkey' is interpreted in a sinister light by someone of different cultural origins.


The Indian media and management courtesy of their double-standards, jingoism and cries of bias do provide some light relief. They also take the focus off the boorish and unsportsman-like behaviour of the Aussie team that has been occuring for years and continues to compromise their reputation amongst cricket fans.

 

[dice]

Isn't it obvious the Indian crowds were praising Symonds as a god with the monkey chants?

I have no doubt many Indians do not understand that monkey is an historically racist word in western society. However, last year Symonds explained it to Harbhajan who apologised and promised to never call him monkey ever again.

No excuses.

 

[Leethal]

I agree with everything you have said here TTE. The double standard is both hilarious and frustrating.

 

[Twizzle]

No matter what spin the Indians try and put on Sings interpretation of the word "monkey", he is a repeat offender and cant claim ignorance the second time.

If Hogg is guilty, he deserves to be punished accordingly.

The issue that has been raised above is the sensitivity of the word "bastard" to the Indian community. Hopefully that is taken into account when and if Hogg is found guilty.

 

[JJ]

ahh well, if nothing else it's getting cricket a lot of attention, better to be in the news than not, or so they say

 

[IanG]

Speaking if these topics, Let's not forget what happened back in 1996 when Inzamam was called a "potato" (Whatever that's suppose to mean in that sence) and ended up in trouble with the law for clobbering the offending spectator with a cricket bat

 

[ozbash]

Speaking if these topics, Let's not forget what happened back in 1996 when Inzamam was called a "potato" (Whatever that's suppose to mean in that sence) and ended up in trouble with the law for clobbering the offending spectator with a cricket bat

the guy he belted was giving him racial grief via a megaphone. Inzy got sick of it and belted him. Good on him. Apparently the Canadians wanted to charge him with GBH and the guy with the megaphone was charged with the same thing because he belted Inzy with the megaphone :lol:

both lots of charges were dropped but I think the ICC got into Inzy's back pocket for bringing the game into disrepute, a charge half a dozen cricketers of aussie and indian origin should be facing after the last weeks debacle.

 

[El Diablo]

this is one of the more laughable articles

http://indiainteracts.com/columnist/2008/01/07/Since-when-did-monkey-become-a-racial-abuse/

Since when did "monkey" become a racial abuse?

In an Indian home, in whichever part of the country one may come, there would hardly be any child, whichever language he speaks, who has not been called a "monkey" by one of the elders in the House or even in the neighbourhood. Show me one child who has not earned that epithet and has not felt proud of it. It is a sort of recognition of a child's mischievous nature and also its ability to amuse elders. And almost all the time that an elder with mock irritation tries to chastise the child calling him or her a "monkey", a sense of pride is always associated with that chide.

Now in India monkeys are an object of even worship, what with the Hanuman being part of everyone's psyche and his devotion to the mythical Lord Ram and all the mythology surrounding it, only adding to the reverence. So even when an argument becomes heated, the use or rather abuse with the word "monkey" inevitably lightens up the situation.

But down under, apparently it does not seem to be the case! Or atleast in the ICC manual "monkey" is a racial insult, and any cricketer calling a rival cricketer using that word, is liable to be hauled up for racial prejudice and abuse. Our own ebullient spinner and a character among Indian cricketers, who plays his cricket the hard way, Harbhajan Singh has discovered it much to his and his team-men's chagrin yesterday at Sydney in Australia.

Andrew Symonds, who is apparently the only "black" cricketer in the all-white Aussie team, was the object of Bhajji's abuse, and the off spinner now finds himself banished from test cricket for the next three test matches, which means he is out of the Australian tour as far as test matches are concerned. An abuse, which Bhajji is, said to have hurled and which was not heard by anyone else apparently, including the umpires. But that has not stopped the ICC Referee to find him guilty and ban him.

So is calling someone a "monkey" a racial abuse? Now going by our Indian sensibilities and understanding, does Symonds look "black"? He is by far, going by what one has seen of him on Television, fairer than almost every other Indian cricketer. And do Indians normally indulge in racial abuse against such "black" Australians? One thought it was the Indians, rather Asians and the black Africans who are targets of racial abuse, all along. Now when did we brown and black men become racial abusers?

Well ICC thinks so. Now does ICC have a list of abuses, which they have published and circulated among cricketers to make them aware what they consider as racial abuse? Even if such a list exists, though one has not heard of it so far, has that been vetted by all the cricket boards and cleared? Does it pass the test of various cultures that the cricket playing countries have? Or is it the prerogative of the white man to decide what is racial abuse and what is not?

Incidentally, do Australians think "monkey" is a racial abuse? Well, well, if they do, they are a funny nation.

Why? Well, do you know every year the Australian Mint produces a gold coin, known as the "Monkey Gold Coin", with the figure of a monkey on it, of various sizes and weights with costs ranging from 70.80 to 917 Australian dollars per coin. And why? As an Australian bullion web site says, because, "traditionally, the Monkey is one of the more favoured lunar animals", and incidentally also considered lucky.

Coming back to Symonds, he has been an object of ridicule and fun even on Indian grounds, not because as the ICC or the Australian thinks that he is "black" and that Indians are racists. But obviously because he paints himself up in such an odd fashion. Agreed he might have very sensitive skin and the vagaries of weather may affect it. But so do so many other cricketers, and none of them make a spectacle of themselves like he does. And when someone wants to make a spectacle of oneself, one I guess will have to be prepared to be treated as one! Doesn't ICC have a manual on it???

Australian cricketers are known to play there game the hard way, and use all methods to intimidate their opponents. So much so at the beginning of every test series, with them, media is full of mind games being played by them. And if anyone objects to it, they are dubbed as sissies, and the rest are expected to be tough enough to take that all and play cricket. Well, fair enough, the modern game is no more a gentlemen's game it once was, obviously because of the huge commerce involved. But what is sauce for the gander, should it not be sauce for the goose too? If even Bhajji had called Symonds "Bandar" or even a "kala Bandar", though one cannot imagine him doing it, as Symonds skin seems to be fairer than the Punjab off spinner's, why make such a big issue? Is sledging, which the Australians have made it into a fine art on the field, a weapon exclusively to be used by them?

One is not even talking of the unfair umpiring decisions here and worse the total lack of sportsman spirit displayed by the Aussies while appealing for catches, which did in some of our best batsmen, or their batsmen not walking when they were clearly out, which even lead to India's defeat in Sydney. We will take it as one of those things, which any sportsman has to encounter and move on to the next game with renewed determination.

But what takes the goat is that an Indian cricketer being banned for racial abuse. Or is it a sign of India, am sure much to the glee of globalisers, arriving on the global stage? Is it some sort of global recognition to us, that from being abused racially, we have been recognised as abusers? Come on ICC, grow up, understand the cultural diversity before taking such ridiculous decisions. And let the game go on. Meanwhile hopefully no child in India will accuse his elder of a racial slur, when he is called a "monkey", "Bandar" "kothi"-------!

 

[ozbash]

Ena Sharples used to call Albert Tatlock a "cheeky monkey" on Coro St.

Wonder if she was getting into him ?

 

[JJ]

 

[El Diablo]

people post their own pics here http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=107800

 

[Thomas]

Silly kiwi.

That isn't a monkey. Its a bonobo..an ape...and the closest ape gentically linked to us.

I bet you call dolphins fish, eh?

;-)

 

[HevyDevy]

No matter what spin the Indians try and put on Sings interpretation of the word "monkey", he is a repeat offender and cant claim ignorance the second time.

If Hogg is guilty, he deserves to be punished accordingly.

The issue that has been raised above is the sensitivity of the word "bastard" to the Indian community. Hopefully that is taken into account when and if Hogg is found guilty.

I'm stunned that Matt Sing would say such a thing anyway ...

 

[Mr Angry]

bonobo my favorite apes.

 

[El Diablo]

mad rooters

 

[kilroy]

that's a very good point Ted.
I'm all for banning Bhajji IF he said those words (which i think he did, but in what jest, i don't know) AND IF they have enough evidence to back it up, something more than just 1 mans words vs anothers. If not, then i dont' see how you can hold him guilty. and if they do have enough evidence, then i don't think there is bigger moron on earth than ICC & Procter, simply for keeping the evidence under wraps. the same goes for Hogg. I doubt there is any proof of him calling indians bastards & if there isn't, then there is no way you can hold him guilty, even if there are 10 indians testifying against 2 ozzies.

Simply put, Bhajji should've stood up to it and accepted the ban if he'd said it. but i think the indian ire is more coz of the basis on which the conclusion was reached.

 

[kilroy]

sry, dbl post.

 

[mickdo]

something more than just 1 mans words vs anothers

it is not just 1 mans word against anothers

 

[kilroy]

new reports all over, procters public speech itlsef dont' suggest anything more.
and i don't understand how come u r so confident that he indeed has some evidence.
don't you think it would only be sensible to release it. i'm sure the indians can't complaint if there is any evidence at all. by hiding the evidence, they are just adding fuel to fire.

 

[skeepe]

new reports all over, procters public speech itlsef dont' suggest anything more.
and i don't understand how come u r so confident that he indeed has some evidence.
don't you think it would only be sensible to release it. i'm sure the indians can't complaint if there is any evidence at all. by hiding the evidence, they are just adding fuel to fire.

I'm sure the Indians know what the evidence is. They just don't accept it, clearly.

Besides that, the appeal is the proper place for making their concerns heard. If they feel they have been hardly done by and that Singh did not make the comment, then this will be borne out in the appeal.

By trying to prejudice the outcome, they do themselves no credit.