There's No Justification For This Monkey Business

Sydney Morning Herald

Wednesday January 9, 2008

Peter Roebuck's failure to even mention the racism charge against the "Sikh warrior" Harbhajan Singh reads to me like tacit endorsement ("For the sake of our integrity, the arrogant Ponting must be sacked", January 8). Calling Australia's only black player a monkey is not just rudeness. It's not just sledging. It's not just psychological taunting. It's racism. Pure and simple. And those who hold themselves up as spokesmen for our game, like Peter Roebuck, must be part of the solution, or move aside.

David Masters Paddington

"Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon." So, by that, Peter, are we meant to see racism as a mere rudeness? Or perhaps we should overlook his racist comments because Singh "is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people". I'd suggest the head of the family should exercise a bit more discretion and control.

Greg Pankhurst Marrickville

Roebuck apparently blames Ponting for the suspension of Harbhajan Singh. If Harbhajan made the remark, which the match referee apparently found he did, then he deserved his suspension. What was Ponting to do? Ignore a blatant racist remark? I suggest that Roebuck look at what has happened in the AFL after two courageous Aboriginal players, Nicky Winmar and Michael Long, made a stand. Racist remarks are no longer acceptable anywhere, especially on a professional sporting field.

Lindsay Cook Lindfield

The president of the United India Association, Raj Natarajan, says "monkey" is not a racist term in India ("'Monkey' not racist: Indian Aussies", smh.com.au, January 7). This is very easy to believe - it is not commonly used in that way in Australia, either, probably because the racial group that it is most often used to abuse is not a significant part of the population.

I can easily accept that many Indians would not think of the term as racist. However, if any player used the word to address Andrew Symonds, just months after spectators in India had been arrested for similar behaviour, then, at the very least, their actions were incredibly stupid.

It is ridiculous to suggest that placards referring to Symonds were comparing him to the Monkey God. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that the Indian team were not aware of these incidents and the subsequent commitments to clamp down on racism in cricket crowds.

Jonathan Dixon London

As an Indian Aussie, I disagree with the United Indian Association's assertion. Let us not kid ourselves. Look at the context in which this term was used, in particular Symonds being the only non-white in the team. The association does not speak for all Indian Aussies and, if this conduct indeed took place, then I and many others would condemn it.

Rahul Bindra Cherrybrook

India seems to be both denying and excusing the use of the term monkey. If Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, let him accept the punishment. It was made perfectly clear before the match that such a reference was out of bounds. If he did not call Symonds a monkey, why is so much effort being expended in justifying the term as one of endearment among Indians?

Alice Hofler Dee Why

Ponting may have been rude, even arrogant. But at least he had the courage to stand up against racism in cricket. If only Roebuck had the same kind of courage instead of the petty cowardice his column displays.

Michael Richardson Frenchs Forest

© 2008 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home