John Howard for ICC President!

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

No Boris, there is absolutely no metric in which Howard could be seen as a superior candidate to Sir John Anderson (Apart from the fact that he Australian, which appears to be the only reason he was chosen).

Both have vast experience in politics, but Anderson was specifically on the ICC board for 13 years, and as such would have far more knowledge of the intimate workings of the ICC. Among his achievements, according to Cricinfo, was "play(ing) a key role in restructuring the ICC's internal make-up and rewrote its articles and committee manual."

John Howard, on the other hand, sometimes dressed up in a green and gold tracksuit to watch the cricket, called Murali a chucker, and presided over a xenophonic, nationalist government for 12 years, supremely unbefitting for the leader of an organisation as culturally diverse as the ICC.

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

And getting new blood into the ICC isn't a good thing?

Also getting a face in there that is noticeable worldwide is not beneficial to a commitee that has seemingly no power anyway?

 

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

Neither of those things hold even the slightest bit of importance. What do you mean by "has no power anyway"? Inside the domain of world cricket, the ICC has all the power

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

Neither of those things hold even the slightest bit of importance. What do you mean by "has no power anyway"? Inside the domain of world cricket, the ICC has all the power

I think the main role that the ICC must complete now is to regain power over the BCCI.

 

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

I guess if we needed a man to launch a racially-fuelled crusade against a subcontinental country, someone with John Howard's level of disdain for foreign cultures would be the ideal candidate.

A better way though, would be to give Ireland test status, damaging the impact of the BCCI voting bloc and reducing their ability to use their superior finances to strongarm the ICC.

This article sums it up perfectly:
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2003/12/16/is-howard-racist/

Is this really the kind of person you want leading as diverse an organisation as the ICC?

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

What a great idea. Only problem is BCCI will vote it down.

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

I guess if we needed a man to launch a racially-fuelled crusade against a subcontinental country, someone with John Howard's level of disdain for foreign cultures would be the ideal candidate.

A better way though, would be to give Ireland test status, damaging the impact of the BCCI voting bloc and reducing their ability to use their superior finances to strongarm the ICC.

This article sums it up perfectly:
Is Howard racist? Ambit Gambit

Is this really the kind of person you want leading as diverse an organisation as the ICC?

IF everything that article says is true, what impact does it have? I think that article is ****************, but just looking at it anyway.

Cricket is an English game, very heavily westernised. That is how the game works.

South Africa was out of play for a number of years because apartheid. That scheme wasn't exactly a 'westernised' thing was it? But that culture simply doesn't fit to playing cricket.

India and similar nations have already been changed. Their cultures were interrupted and thrashed around by the English oh so many years ago. I'm sure they are thankful that cricket was delivered to them now.

Howard has made a stand against Zimbabwe and the cricket team. He was sick of Mugabe. Mugabe and Zimbabwean culture doesn't fit into cricket. If you want them to play cricket then that has to be changed.

If the case of him being 'racist' is a problem then anyone trying to introduce cricket into America is a racist. It goes against their culture and they obviously don't want to play it.

It's not as if Howard will be taking over cultures and destroying people's lives. Rather the opposite. If he is in fact racist, then he will be trying to get people to see cricket in the same light as him. His power would stop only at his ability to convince people to like cricket.

That is only if that article is true however.

 

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

IF everything that article says is true, what impact does it have? I think that article is ****************, but just looking at it anyway.

A huge impact, for obvious reasons.

Cricket is an English game, very heavily westernised. That is how the game works.

Cricket was an English invention, that's all. To suggest there is an inherent 'westernness' to it is profoundly insensitive to the cricketers of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies, and the rest of the countless Asian and African nations who play cricket.

South Africa was out of play for a number of years because apartheid. That scheme wasn't exactly a 'westernised' thing was it? But that culture simply doesn't fit to playing cricket.

What has apartheid got to do with the price of tea in China?

India and similar nations have already been changed. Their cultures were interrupted and thrashed around by the English oh so many years ago. I'm sure they are thankful that cricket was delivered to them now.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it doesn't make any sense regardless. If you are trying to say that British cultural imperialism was a good thing, then I don't even know how to respond to that.

Howard has made a stand against Zimbabwe and the cricket team. He was sick of Mugabe. Mugabe and Zimbabwean culture doesn't fit into cricket. If you want them to play cricket then that has to be changed.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. John Howard is not going to go riding into Zimbabwe on a silver stallion and oust Mugabe from his throne of evil.

If the case of him being 'racist' is a problem then anyone trying to introduce cricket into America is a racist. It goes against their culture and they obviously don't want to play it.

I never said he was racist, and neither did the article. He is merely an aging conservative who lacks the sensitivity and appreciation of other cultures to head an organisation like the ICC.

It's not as if Howard will be taking over cultures and destroying people's lives. Rather the opposite. If he is in fact racist, then he will be trying to get people to see cricket in the same light as him. His power would stop only at his ability to convince people to like cricket.

That is only if that article is true however.

Again with the nonsensical word soup. Please make your position clearer.

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

OK.

You claim that Howard is 'racist' (or whatever it is you call it).

You and the reference you provided says that he tries to convert other cultures into western culture.

Cricket is of western culture. You said it yourself. It's an English invention.

British Imperialism delivered cricket to the subcontinent. It 'converted' their culture. Small evidence.

If Howard was still prime minister that would be a point to raise against him. That he isn't 'multi-cultural' enough to president the ICC does not matter.

What cultures does he have to deal with? He has to deal with cricket and cricket only. That is an English culture. Why do subcontinental players play by the 'spirit of the game' (whatever it may be) when in their culture lining up isn't an expectation. Why do they suddenly convert their culture to match England's while they are playing?

Cricket is a culture. Howard would have to deal with no more than cricket the culture itself.

Instead if he was trying to 'convert' people as you say, he would be doing a good thing by spreading cricket.

That is the only thing I can see by you raising the point in question.

 

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

Boris, you have a comprehensive misunderstanding of absolutely everything I have said in this thread.

Again, I explicitly said that I do not belive John Howard is racist, however, in the space of one post you've decided to put words in my mouth.

Nowhere in the link I posted does it suggest that Howard 'tries to convert other cultures into Western Culture', I don't know where you could have got this notion from.

Your view that 'cricket is culture' and therefore trumps everything else is supremely lacking in nuance. Cultural sensitivity is a huge part of any sort of diplomacy when different nationalities are involved.

What cultures does he have to deal with? He has to deal with cricket and cricket only. That is an English culture. Why do subcontinental players play by the 'spirit of the game' (whatever it may be) when in their culture lining up isn't an expectation. Why do they suddenly convert their culture to match England's while they are playing?

I'm not entirely sure what this means, but if it does mean what I think it means (That non western cultures are somehow more primitive than western cultures, and only step up to the glory of western sportsmanship when confronted by an inherently more refined white opponent) then that's pretty damn racist.

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

Again, I explicitly said that I do not belive John Howard is racist, however, in the space of one post you've decided to put words in my mouth.

Nowhere in the link I posted does it suggest that Howard 'tries to convert other cultures into Western Culture', I don't know where you could have got this notion from.

I guess if we needed a man to launch a racially-fuelled crusade against a subcontinental country, someone with John Howard's level of disdain for foreign cultures would be the ideal candidate.

This article sums it up perfectly:
Is Howard racist? Ambit Gambit

Is this really the kind of person you want leading as diverse an organisation as the ICC?

Racially fueled crusade? Ideal candidate?

Then:

I never said he was racist, and neither did the article. He is merely an aging conservative who lacks the sensitivity and appreciation of other cultures to head an organisation like the ICC.

I grant the fact you never actually said it, but forgive me for somehow mixing it up amongst the lots of other stuff that points towards it (including an article 'Is Howard Racist?')

"The article sums it up perfectly". Synopsis of article: Howard likes to take other cultures and turn them into his own, therefore sparking thoughts of 'racism'.

Cricket was an English invention, that's all. To suggest there is an inherent 'westernness' to it is profoundly insensitive to the cricketers of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies, and the rest of the countless Asian and African nations who play cricket.

I never said he was racist, and neither did the article. He is merely an aging conservative who lacks the sensitivity and appreciation of other cultures to head an organisation like the ICC.

Cricket is an English invention. Therefore when other countries play it, they have been westernised. This now has little relevance that you have cleared up your contradictions.

Your view that 'cricket is culture' and therefore trumps everything else is supremely lacking in nuance. Cultural sensitivity is a huge part of any sort of diplomacy when different nationalities are involved.

And being a national politician not meet those requirements. I daresay he is a hell of a lot more experienced and from what I have seen more inept than Sir Anderson.

I'm not entirely sure what this means, but if it does mean what I think it means (That non western cultures are somehow more primitive than western cultures, and only step up to the glory of western sportsmanship when confronted by an inherently more refined white opponent) then that's pretty damn racist.

In no way did I intend it to be read as that.

English culture invented the queue. Other countries didn't abide by the queue before Westernisation butted in to make it wordwide. In no way is either way 'right'.
Instead look at cricket. Everyone follows the same laws and even the same 'non-written laws' across many different languages and vastly different socio-cultural backgrounds.

Therefore saying that Howard doesn't have the ability to handle different cultures barely matters whatsoever. He is dealing in cricket, the universal language between all of them.

He is hardly going to become president on the ICC and tell India to feed it's starving millions because 'Australia does it that way'. In the same way that the current president doesn't get up and make a stand against something inept in Australian culture in his eyes.

I would say that he is more capable than Anderson for this job.

 

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

"The article sums it up perfectly". Synopsis of article: Howard likes to take other cultures and turn them into his own, therefore sparking thoughts of 'racism'.

No, No, No, No. For the third time, that is not what the article says at all. It says he lacks an appreciation for other cultures, not that he tries to somehow impose his own Australian culture on the.

Cricket is an English invention. Therefore when other countries play it, they have been westernised. This now has little relevance that you have cleared up your contradictions.

Gunpowder is a Chinese invention, so whenever somebody shoots someone, they have been Asianised. The speed gun was invented in South Africa, so whenever somebody gets a speeding fine, they have been Africanised. The orbital satellite was a Soviet invention, so whenever somebody makes a phone call, watches television or checks what the weather is going to be tomorrow, they have been Russian communised.

Do you see how ridiculous this is?

And being a national politician not meet those requirements. I daresay he is a hell of a lot more experienced and from what I have seen more inept than Sir Anderson.

Why would being inept be a desirable characteristic?

English culture invented the queue. Other countries didn't abide by the queue before Westernisation butted in to make it wordwide. In no way is either way 'right'.
Instead look at cricket. Everyone follows the same laws and even the same 'non-written laws' across many different languages and vastly different socio-cultural backgrounds.

Therefore saying that Howard doesn't have the ability to handle different cultures barely matters whatsoever. He is dealing in cricket, the universal language between all of them.

Yes, on-field perhaps, but the ICC president does not play cricket, he fosters good relations and diplomacy between vastly different nations and cultures, who often will have conflicting agendas. Cricket administrators view cricket as a business, and I don't see how an appreciation for the game is going to be of any value whatsoever.

He is hardly going to become president on the ICC and tell India to feed it's starving millions because 'Australia does it that way'. In the same way that the current president doesn't get up and make a stand against something inept in Australian culture in his eyes.

Actually, some kind of heavy-handed 'why don't you be more like Australia' is exactly the kind of thing I would expect with John Howard in charge of the ICC.

I would say that he is more capable than Anderson for this job.

He isn't.

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

No, No, No, No. For the third time, that is not what the article says at all. It says he lacks an appreciation for other cultures, not that he tries to somehow impose his own Australian culture on the.

And still not of relation to the job at hand. He is dealing through cricket. If he doesn't appreciate Indian culture for example, it has nothing to do with what he would have to do in the workplace. I'm pretty sure he's not going to make stupid decisions if someone else walks into the room.

Gunpowder is a Chinese invention, so whenever somebody shoots someone, they have been Asianised. The speed gun was invented in South Africa, so whenever somebody gets a speeding fine, they have been Africanised. The orbital satellite was a Soviet invention, so whenever somebody makes a phone call, watches television or checks what the weather is going to be tomorrow, they have been Russian communised.

Do you see how ridiculous this is?

So you are saying that when two different teams are playing cricket on the field they are really playing two different games in two completely different ways with different laws and different acceptable standards?

Why would being inept be a desirable characteristic?

Oops, my bad. You knew what I meant.

Yes, on-field perhaps, but the ICC president does not play cricket, he fosters good relations and diplomacy between vastly different nations and cultures, who often will have conflicting agendas. Cricket administrators view cricket as a business, and I don't see how an appreciation for the game is going to be of any value whatsoever.

He isn't

And there is the point I have been arguing. Off the field it is a business, it is politics, it is anything but a game. Having an ex-player in the position is a bad way to go, and I'm not sure that Anderson is the right choice either.

Besides Anderson retired 2 years ago from the New Zealand board. How come he suddenly decides to return to cricket?

More than anything I also want a change. You have to agree that the ICC has slowly been degenerating into a big mess with everyone rolling around with their hands tied for one reason or another. They do a brilliant job, but it's going downhill.

Anderson had to handle 13 years of New Zealand in relative calm. He did some quite brilliant work for them, but his last few years before his retirement saw a few slip ups from what I have read.

 

[a for effort]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

I give up. You have fundamentally misunderstood, misrepresented and twisted everything I have said in order to continue to hammer home your woefully misguided argument that a man with as patchy a record in cultural diversity as John Howard will be able to successfully run an organisation like the ICC, solely because "He's dealing with cricket!". The real world does not work like that, Boris, but by all means continue to live in your fairy-tale world where Indians, Australians, and all other nationalities can all dance around ICC headquarters hand in hand, their cultural, spiritual and philosophical differences set aside simply because they are working for a sport that their countries all play.

 

[Boris]

Re: John Howard for ICC President!

It works for every other sport in the world, but cricket apparently.

As usual.