The dialogue

Written by HW

Friday, 13 June 2008

It so happened that we thought of a clever idea, were getting too lazy and disorganized to execute it, when two of our contributors who had no idea what we were thinking went ahead and pulled it off before we could ask them to. Must be a divine sign somewhere here.

Anyway, the idea basically is to get two (or more) hard-core cricket followers with two strong, opposing opinions on anything cricket, and have enough information (usually) to back their stands to discuss their opinions and ideas out with each other.

The aim is to make for an interesting, enlightening discussion that shows us perspectives that we probably wouldn't have bothered to find out otherwise.

To kick this series off (hopefully there will be enough to follow after this to qualify it as a 'series'), our West Indian contributors Jonathan Cumberbatch and Ravi Singh discuss whether the West Indian cricketers participating in the 'rebel' tour to South Africa deserved the ostracization they got.

This was the article that triggered the discussion off, and here is the debate that followed.

Jonathan:
Stumbled across this. I do believe in principles and won't let these guys off the hook, still it is a thorough piece of work.

Ravi:
It's hard for me to think of them as villains...I'm a new father with a family in a new land. If I was required to renounce my Trinidadian citizenship to obtain the Canadian one, I would without a second hesitation. I gave a lot to Trinidad, but in the end, it turned on me. I consider myself a good person, loyal to my friends and family. Would I be considered a traitor in Trinidad because I want something better in life for my family & myself? Would I be seen as abandoning Trinidad instead of staying and fighting to make it right? By some, yes, by others, no.

These guys had no money, no jobs. I see no mention anywhere of the same governments and people who ostracized them offering them jobs in return for them to remain at home. Yes, the motive was financial, but I can only imagine how they inspired the Africans, both black & white...one side seeing that black men could rise above...and one side seeing that blacks are equal to everyone else...a little white boy bringing a Coke to a black man, don't you think a tiny seed was planted into his mind and all those who saw it, that hey, maybe things can be different, maybe black people are the same as me?

Principles won't feed your family or provide for you when you lose your talent. It's easy for those who have to critizise.

I would like your side of it. This happened at a time I do not remember much and I would like to hear it from someone who remembers it when it happened and what the feelings were at the time.

Jonathan:
Principles won't feed anything but the road to any shred of prosperity relies on them (or its misunderstood alternate term, values).

At the time of the tour, South Africa had been officially ostracized from most sporting bodies for 13 years in international cricket and 15 years generally. The UN and various human rights bodies had also engineered various embargoes and guess what, it was working.

The relentlessly publicized international focus brought home the SA atrocities to their own and several internal bodies, black and white (including famously Rev. Tutu and Steve Biko) were chipping away at an increasingly isolated government led for most of the final throes by P.W. Botha.

Interestingly, the Reagan-led USA continued its 'constructive diplomacy' policy during this time opting to continue business with the now pariah state, the price for which seems about to be paid based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Attempt after attempt was made by SA cricket authorities to lure West Indian players particularly after the demise of Packer in 1979. Both Richards and Marshall were offered at least US$1,000,000.00 and of course, 'honorary white' privileges for the duration of the tour (thus the Trini slang was born). Both flatly rejected the offers with Richards publicly addressing the sums as nothing less than blood money.

Research of how SA derived its wealth and maintained civil order then would certainly underline this.

Ian Botham, Gavasker, Chappell and others across the globe also publicly echoed this sentiment.

The 1983 tour was therefore not just a break with the WICB board but a break with the unified position of their peers.

I cannot articulate the horror and the hurt I personally felt on hearing of this.

Over time, more details and reasons leaked out, Rowe and Kallicharan were indeed being eased out of the team to blood the abounding talent . Kalli could be justifiably aggrieved in light of his allegiance to nation during the Packer rout. Rowe had developed an allergy to grass and his days at the top were over. Croft had been advised by his doctor that his back could take no more and the others were now impatient that their places in the Test XI were not cemented. The one exception to this was David Murray who was well ensconced in the Test team and was already being regarded as possibly being the best keeper we had yet produced.

Many are voiced the view that the tour eliminated considerable resources from the Windies cupboard and began our gradual step down from the pinnacle about a decade later.

Also of note, and to add more insult, is that there would be another rebel tour and further offers to mainstream players (e.g. Holding, Garner, Gomes and Dujon that I know about) with little change in all circumstances.

Long story short the definition given for 'apartheid' as separate but equal development was a lie and allowed a holocaust marginally less horrific than that of the Nazis.

Like Germany, the SA government has recognised this fact and instituted several remarkable initiatives at making peace with the past to make a better future possible. Like Germany, this has not been easy and both are enduring the highest crime rates in their respective histories, largely as a direct result of attempting to integrate all local 'tribes', to finally forge genuine societies.

Personal aside: I was recently offered a ludicrously attractive package by WITCO involving use of company cabana, bonuses out of my ass and most important, use of their skybox at the Oval. But its WITCO and I believe the distribution of cigarettes to be unconscionable and a crime, consenting adults or not.

I know, easy to say as I'm going all right in the life so far and I take your point that a family to support does become the final rule of thumb but I believe I would have made the same decision if I was still a clerk waiting for my big break.

Ravi:
Well put together. Indeed, the horrors of the times do seem to justify the position held by many against the rebel players. It's a pity men with such great gifts will probably never find peace, except in death. Were these men really bad people, or were they just trying to get ahead in life? Would all the good deeds they did for country and others all be wiped out by that one period of time. History will tell.

There is a saying, a brutal criminal can do one great deed and be forever remembered for it, a great king after a lifetime of good deeds will forever be vilified for one bad one. Another way of looking at it is that those we look up to always take the biggest fall and those we have no great expectations of, we admire when they rise.

I think our difference is that I see each man as an individual and I see him for his faults and achievements and I understand and identify with him. I see him in me and I understand why people sometimes do the things they do. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, their naturally dark side, their naturally good side and the side where they make the conscious choice to do right or wrong.

I think you look at the bigger picture and see each individual as someone who can contribute to the greater cause, JFK said "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country". There is greatness in that statement and strange when you think it's from a democratic country where individualism is cherished, instead of a communist country where conforming is supposedly for the greater good of the nation.

Just a note, I had worked at WITCO for 5 months as an IT contractor from a consulting firm. When my term was up, I was offered full employment. I turned it down, because, like you, I hate smoking and the harm it causes. My next job was at Pepsi. (Was I wrong for doing my job, ie, I was working for a company that put me there to provide support? Did I make it right by turning down WITCO's offer after :)

Jonathan:
Hey, we all make it right by saying no when its down to us as individuals. Remember, only the movement of a critical mass can effect change, and change is gradual.

An old Jewish saying goes: "a man tells you yes, he tells you no, he means maybe." The point being with people you can never tell and we all carry weaknesses. I think there are fundamental rights and wrongs that we are all aware of and we are often finally judged on how we negotiate that terrain.

Re: George W. Bush, I'll adopt the NY Times description of his tenure as "catastrophic" however he has piloted the largest contribution of aid regarding HIV care to sub-Saharan Africa (albeit to Christian-based community hospitals/ homes).   So I appreciate your conundrum.

I think my main irk is the application of relativism to this issue as time has moved on and a subtle attempt by the author to re-write its history in sympathetic tones towards adults who were completely aware of what they were doing.

As an aside, East Indians enjoyed 'provisional' status in SA to the end of the apartheid era due largely to the efforts of a young lawyer named Mohandas Gandhi. In his later years he often stated he wished he had stayed longer to stop apartheid completely but India's colonial issues were obviously more pressing at that time.

Comments

Add New

RSS