Sehwag asks the quintessential question...

"Why should we be quiet?"
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/330467.html

A question relevant not only to team India on the cricket field but also the their supporters blogging to their defense. We know India better than any Australian or South African (regardless of colour). If Mister Procter knows racism, Indians do too. As recently as 1947 our country was controlled by a racist imperialist power. Retaining a memory of our history does not amount to "carrying a chip on one's shoulder". Indeed retaining a memory of what we have endured is the only way of making sense of what is going on now. The mere mention of the word "postcolonial" invites eye-rolling from the ex-"masters".

What some call "bile" is indeed anger. But dismiss it at your own peril. This is not anger at what happened in the 200 years before 1947. This is anger at what is happening now. Referring to those 200 years only serves to reveal trends, proclivities, attitudes and dispositions. Some things change, a lot doesn't.

We know how to compose sentences with anger. This blog represents the same spirit that brings some irate fans out to the streets in protest, but this blog also reflects a different choice. This is how I choose to protest. And as Sehwag ponders, so do I, why should we be quiet?

Taking a long hard look at something is all very well. But I could just as simply request you to do the same. I'd be happy to acquiesce if some concrete argument was offered to refute what I have written. As things stand I do not see how someone from abroad can tell me that I know less about racism in my country than he or she. It's quite absurd.

I invite you to read something about the positive aspects of Indian culture (rather than gather together bits and pieces of negative opinion based on antiquated traditions). If you do this seriously you're more than likely to find that Harbhajan Singh has no racist inclinations.

Too many people, however, like to paint everything with the same brush. To them racism must mean one single thing no matter what the context. In fact, context, be it historical, geographical, cultural, or circumstantial, has no bearing on their thinking whatsoever.

I'm not drowning in my bile. I'm drowning you in it.

holy mother of ....

http://utkarshkhare.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/of-monkeys-and-maa-kis/
http://tides.ws/

This is so funny! So it turns out Bhajji might have been going for a slur of a very different kind :D
I didn't know about the "teri maa ki" angle, but if true, this must be one of the funniest lost in translation moments ever. At least it sounds a lot more credible than the racism theory.

The simplest explanation

The TEMPLE of monkeys in India.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFSV3hBJQP8&feature=related

Really, what's seems more intuitive/ credible at this point?

Bhajji somehow forgot that a large number of Indians consider monkeys holy, and in a moment of heated passion in a tense game, revealed his racism by pulling out from the depth of his vast yet largely unused racist vocabulary, a very non-Indian, non-Australian slur to mentally unsettle Symonds (who, by the way, is a very vocal and intimidating Australian cricketer, and also had the nerve to not walk when the nick off his bat was heard way back into the crowds.) Bhajji chose, from all the time he's had in his career, this moment when he was batting in the lower order to save a test match, to turn racist.

OR

Ponting, who didn't walk for his catch down the leg side, who claimed a fake catch himself and confirmed a fake catch by Michael Clark (all in the same record-tying game), devised a clever way of striking two targest with one blow - ridding himself of his nemesis in the series, and taking the focus off the terrible umpiring and his own sportsmanship.

It don't matter if you're black or white

And what about this image? It was one of the most popular internet forwards once upon a time. A white man can be likened to a monkey, as can a black, or for that matter an Indian. Don't remember anyone calling this image racist. It shouldn't escape our analysis that racism is often internalized.

It is possible that the wariness towards racism exists more in the head of an average Aussie person of colour than actual racist hatred in the head of an average Indian.

And then there is politics.

Whom was he apeing?

This is an interesting post on another blog.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=849

It summarizes some of the meanings associated with the word "monkey". It seems that it is possible to use the word with a racist connotation, but it is not very common in either Australia or India.

So which lexicon was Harbhajan borrowing from in that moment of heated exchanges when he used the term?? None of them. Indians don't know that word as racist. The reference, if ever indeed made (a big 'if' in its own right), was based entirely on Symonds's individual, not racial characteristics, and had no racist connotation whatsoever.

The little matter of "evidence"

Some folks are agitated about India's threat of leaving the series mid-way. This post is a reply to the argument that Harbhajan deserved what he got and the Indian reaction is excessive.

The first thing to consider is what Australia might have done had so many decisions and administrative failures gone against them in a single test, which they ended up losing. The second thing is how much support would they have received from the ICC. If you are earnest enough to recognize the answer to these two questions then you already know that the Indian reaction is not only legitimate but also necessary.

For those with a love for procedure and due process - that is, the argument that India should just follow the process and not threaten to leave the tour - this whole line of thinking is moot until such time that concrete and irrefutable evidence is not presented against Harbhajan Singh.

The earlier posts on this blog were about the meaning and context of the word "monkey". But hang on a second - if we're going to be all legal and business-like about this - then first show me evidence that the word was uttered in the first place. Harbhajan did not confess to it, Sachin didn't hear it, the umpires (even in their somewhat affected state of mind) did not hear it, and Ricky Ponting (who didn't even miss the nonexistent nick from Dravid's bat) did not hear the word. But Mr. Procter went ahead and handed Bhajji a ban anyway.

Australia first have to prove that there is any truth to the allegations. And if they can ever do that, then they have to prove that the intent and racist nature of what was said. I don't see anything remotely convincing on either front. Surely we're not expected to take Ponting's word for it.

Aussie sledging

The Australian Sledging Academy - lol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1O04GPf-Q
Can't understand why no one is ever fined or banned from the Aussie team no matter how much they sledge or abuse.

This one is great ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St-S8U1qe-k
... Aussies call their sledging "Blue collar mentality"! Best euphemism I've ever heard. Just can't understand how this tough thick-skinned mentality is so easily hurt by an innocuous word like 'monkey'. Can't swallow the slightest dose of their own medicine.