Ming wrote:Back to Campbel and his 'cronies' - are those of you who accuse them of foul play saying that they operate as some kind of secret society whose every waking hour is spent scheming about ways to suppress the black people of Zimbabwe? Much as I am suspicious of them, I have my doubts regarding this allegation. I mean, if you're a hardcore racist, plotting for world domination, surely cricket in Zim is too small time to be worth bothering about?
The issue about being sidelined at 15 is neither here nor there. All I can say with absolute certainty is that in sports, there are multiple cases of individuals who were deliberately sidelined for Whites.
That amount, considering the make-up of the population and overwhelming number of black players in comparison to whites at any level, was/is(SA) sufficient enough to state conclusively, that the ratio of those who would have reached the highest levels - were it not for those racist policies - should have been much greater!
You may find it a rather remote possibility for them to plot about racism at what appears to you to be a miniscule level. However, almost every white man(based in Africa) at every level within their area of interest, does their small part to hang on to what they have, which in turn feeds the great chain of evil. Naturally that's only possible if you "block" the rightful recipients and owners from benefiting equally/more, and they happen to be Black.
Because it's right for you to keep or have, but not for them, then that mentality, and the approach itself is actually racism, and you are essentially a racist.
Not all slaves were forcibly taken. The majority were actually 'bought' from greedy and ignorant rulers. Does that mean White people were justified in continuing to claim ownership of those people(slaves)?
Again, take for instance the handful landowners in Zim/SA, who were/are white, in comparison to the natural residents. The reasoning is we own and we bought - again mostly from ignorant leaders (only then was it resold, passed down etc).
The remarkable thing though is that mature, educated and intelligent white folk find it perfectly logical to say "There were never at any point White people in Zim/SA, we migrated here. We may be just 10 % of you, but we own 80% of the land and resources we found here and it's rightfully ours. If you want it you will have to pay us market rates for it, but if you do that the country will be bankrupt. If you attempt to dispossess us, or repossess the resources and leave us with less than what we had, so that the balance reflects the make-up of the population, our brothers and sisters in Europe and America will disassociate you from the worldwide community."
What am I saying? It is nigh on impossible for so few people to own so much - fairly. But the point I'm making is that
they find it normal for things to be that way, and in small means do everything in their power to plot against efforts to redress the balance at every level. There are many cases of White business owners in the private sector, who pay Black employees who have superior experience and qualifications, much less than White workers at the same level. You can only criticise, not act against it, because they are not parastatals and can do what they want without regulation. They have a
bsolutely no shame in, every year, submitting to the government, Employment Equity reports which reflect these glaring inequalities without being bothered the least bit!
Likewise, sport is a business. A multi-billion dollar industry.
Cricket is no exception and because their jobs/means of livelihood were transferred to Blacks, it's only natural for them to plot and do all they can to keep it that way or create avenues for their children. Which is understandable. What is racist about it is the fact that it must come at the expense of the majority.
Think of
the nerve Heath Streak had. Ozias, quite rightly argued(as should soon happen in SA) that in this day the side selected was unacceptable. Even if the side will lose, but mixed with a core group of experienced White players the losses justify the satisfaction of the constituents who happen to be the majority, black, owners and rightful bearers of the country's name under which the game is carried on at international level(afterall, you don't play for yourself but Zim/SA). As true Zimbabweans they were well within their rights to threaten to dig up the pitch if their FAIR demands were not met - (Zimbabweans playing in Zimbabwe, Zimbabweans supporting a Zimbabwe they want
). Yet Streak wanted an entire association punished, and demanded that the man appointed to ensure that they see a Zimbabwe Cricket team accepable to them, was to be fired or else he resigns. Stuff him! And so it was!
The Whites refused to play under a young Black man who later proved to be a wonderful servant for Zimbabweans - Tatenda Taibu. They didn't quit because Streak was fired. He resigned!
They could've reasoned that we can add our best 5 players(Streak, Grant, Carlisle, Price, Sean Ervine) to Ebrahim/Matsi, Hami, Taibu, Panyangara, Hondo, Chigumbura and be less competitive, but competitive nonetheless. Rodgers, Blignaut, Friend & Wishart can be rotated among us Whites..
The problem is they want everything and to retain hold of it even when common sense says, whatever the cost, it should not continue that way. Of course you do find some like Brown who are not blind -
"I think the rebels shot themselves in the foot. They put 10 points on the table and got nine and a half of what they wanted. The only thing ZCU wouldn’t do is get rid of Max Ebrahim or Ozias Bvute. It’s mind-boggling. We sit there as whites in our little world and the rebels sit there and say nothing’s happening to cricket in the country, but when you actually go out to the townships and have a look, the progress that’s being made is amazing."
But then again, there are some fools like Carlisle -
"Regardless of whether there are goals or quotas, when you’ve got documents saying a crowd at a cricket match should be 75 per cent black by the year 2005 and there should be seven non-whites in the team, that’s discrimination". Sadly the numbers extend beyond this Stuart fellow -
"The crowd grew and by the time Tatenda Taibu came in at 80 for four there must have been more than 3,000 in the ground, making a lot of noise. About 70 per cent were black – so that was one ‘quota’ fulfilled. But some of the white Zimbabweans were supporting England in protest at what they see as the politicisation of their team. The evidence of emerging black talent was there right in front of us as 19-year-old Elton Chigumbura hit a powerful half-century." Clearly they believed cricket in Zimbabwe was a preserve of the Whites and should have remained that way!
That to me is racist in itself!
Justice Ebrahim summed it up very well -
"There was nothing I liked more in those days than sitting down with a cup of coffee and reading the English papers. But now the English press is not what it was. When it comes to cricket they print lies. In 2000, 20 years after independence, only five of the 29 senior administrators at the ZCU were black. At independence there were as many as 200,000 whites in the country; in 2000, when the farm invasions began, there were 70,000; today, there are as few as 25,000, many of them elderly. I and a minority of other administrators recognised that if left unchecked it would only be a matter of time before cricket died in this country. But when a choice had to be made between a black and a white player, the white player always got the nod." They are relentless and never want to yield for a black man. All the more reason why it's not surprising to hear Makoni shed light on this selection issue where Price and Utseya are concerned. An attempt was made to overrule the Convenor, even illegal means were employed in desperation.
What is harmful is the lengths to which they go to get their way no matter who suffers - "The white players held the board to ransom. In 2000, for instance, when Zimbabwe toured the West Indies the players decided they didn’t want the coach Dave Houghton any longer so they forced him out." The allegation was later backed up by Ali Shah, who was tour manager at the time. "It was the tail wagging the dog. The players always had to have their way. Davie wanted to drop Alistair Campbell and pick Craig Wishart, but the royal family of Andy Flower, Grant Flower, Campbell and [Guy] Whittall wouldn’t stand for that." Wishart and DH learnt the hard way, but for some reason, certain sections in this forum find it hard to believe that mafias exist in Zimbabwean and South African cricket!
Streak's answer to why the black and white players used different buses while on tour in Australia is laughable - "It's cultural thing. The white players would come to breakfast early, the black players would walk in three or four minutes before we were due to leave. The first bus would fill up, then the black guys would come out with their toast in their mouths and get in the other bus. " Once again Ali Shah(who would no doubt reveal the name of this racist idiot if pressed for it) gives the real answer to prove that racial problem existed - 'I got on the white bus and asked one of the players why there were no blacks on board. He replied, “Because they stink”. Even in the dressing room you’d have whites on one side and blacks on the other.’ Logically the author questions whether Heath Streak as captain did enough to unify the team and remove the segregation. While he believes Heath is not a racist, it doesn't help if he sat among those who felt Blacks stink and Whites don't, unless he approved of that view!
We cannot turn a blind eye to the plundering and corruption of the administrators. Up to this point they have contributed significantly to the slow progress of Zim cricket. But they are being greedy and inconsiderate, not grossly hateful & racist!
What is surprising is to hear David Morgan, then England and Wales Cricket Board chairman, being rational about the whole situation 'I believe my decision to instruct the team to stay in Johannesburg overnight was critical. England would have lost the respect of the other cricket nations if they had not tried to reach a compromise.' He used his favourite phrases – ‘closure’ and ‘acceptable non-compliance’ – before concluding that 'it does much more good for international cricket to be here than to stay away’. Even more surprising was for him to see positives about the economic outlook, even if it wasn't completely the case.
On the contrary, what is not surprising is Coltart's efforts to lead the author to think otherwise about the economic situation. No doubt the amount of energy he exhausted in getting the English not to play their WC match in Zimbabwe, as well as doing everything possible in order to convince them not to tour Zimbabwe, proves he has genuine love for Zimbabwe Cricket and definitely has has its interest at heart. 
Of him the author Tom de Castella says he was contemptuous. I'ts not hard to agree. At the core, bitter racists tend to be that way, and the Senator may have developed into a full blown one right now. That he would plot to wreak havoc at small time Zim Cricket, is not far fetched from where I'm standing Ming. After all, why else would a top level chemical scientist(William Basson), who "unconsciously" 
served the apartheid government's intentions to develop biological weapons to be used to kill Backs, be so determined to remain head of Cricket South Africa as acting president? Crucially, why would his White colleagues be so eager to retain him?
Surely Coltart, an experienced lawyer who was defending Gukurahundi victims, and Basson the highly sought after scientist, can better use their expertise in areas other than sports, particularly cricket? Don't you think...
