04/26/24
September 28, 2004
Flower: tour is bad news: This is an issue that won't go away and no one's found a proper answer to it. No one's denying what kind of person Mugabe is and what he's done to his people but is it sport's job to take a stand when international business is happy to trade with Zimbabwe? No one's calling on British Airways to suspend its flights to Harare or for Barclays Bank to close its branches. Why is cricket tearing itself apart over this issue when football (soccer) is happy to play anyone and even the Olympics will be held in China - no one's idea of a democracy? Or should sport, something which can unite people of all nations, take a moral lead where politicians and business men have let us down again?
I wish to contribute something intelligent to this discussion, but I don't have the brainpower for it right now. That said, I do wish there was a Cricket category here on spofi.
posted by blarp at 06:09 PM on September 28, 2004
It's a tough moral question you pose, Pete. As well say, "Is it my job to take a stand when you (or whoever) haven't done anything?" The answer is a personal one. My personal answer, in such cases, is that it's no one's job, but some people's choice. If moral stands are ever made, they happen because somebody (or some group) decided to go first, without waiting for someone else. BTW, to stick to the cricket theme, have any of you ever seen the movie Lagaan? Bollywood at its biggest, it's a political cricket movie that is supposedly based on a true story. Available from netflix!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:12 PM on September 28, 2004
The failure of others to do what ought to be done cannot be used as a justification of doing wrong yourself. That said, I agree that cricket is pulling itself apart unnecessarily over this - it's like a smoker who keeps trying to stop, and as such finds himself in the worst of all possible worlds, suffering the malignant affects of both the smoke and the psychological damage inflicted by continued failure to quit. A decision ought to be reached and stuck to - regardless of which way that decision goes. Histroy can judge the decision, and in the meantime, people can get on with their lives and make plans.
posted by JJ at 02:54 AM on September 29, 2004
1/ There's a history of sports being involved in politics. The claim this isn't so is disingenious; how much power has the Olympics derived over the years from nations making it a battleground for their ideologies? 2/ Commonwealth and former Commonwealth nations are the main players of cricket, and there's plenty of precendent for this (eg rugby boycotts of South Africa). 3/ Black-ruled African nations were very aggressive about demanding sporting isolation for South African, to the point of Olympic boycotts. Why are they bitching about the same standard of non-cooperation with racist regimes being applied now? 4/ Most important: Cricket is actually something, other than maintaining a hold on power, that Mugabe cares passionately about. Most attempts to sanction nations fial because they hit ordinary people more than their undesirable ruling classes (see Iraq for an example); this is an example where Mugabe can be hit, and hurt, without undue suffering for the people of Zimbabwe.