Re: Shilly Banned! Note the Comments FANS!
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:03 pm
look man I saw ramadin bowl you know...lots of overs in 1960 at the QPO. there was not the slightes hint of chucking with Ramadin.
try to cop the meaning of this: the westindian white man was in charge then and they were not loves of us..blac and brown. no matter how good you were if you did not fit they were not going to pick you.
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN HELL DEH WERE PICKING ANY PLAYER SAVE HE WAS ABOVE BOARD AND DEN SOME. apply BP'S 'JUDGED BY A DIFFERENT STANDARD and you get a sense of that situation was like.
if there was even the slightest hint of illegality about ramadins action he would not have smelled a westindies team.
Worrell and Gilchrist challeged this status quo. Worrells' was impeccably middle-class, intellectual and well withing the limits of accepted ideological protest at the time...a time that had made lots of room for CLR James and the whole ideological and schiolarly bandwagon in the train of which Worrell was to be found
Gilcrist was out and out disobediance, open challenge in the face of the hypocrissy of the status quo and he paid with his career and ultimately a shortened life which I sense was terminally affected by his sense of the westindies and his frustraion about his inabiity to affect his problems as a blac man in the world as it is.
but be taht as it may and what is even worse is that if Ramadain and the other plaers knew that were doing something wrong, that they werent conscious, they more than anyone else would correct it themselves regardless of what was involved in the correction...even if they had to drop themselves. 'it would not be cricket' otherwise!
I know tjhose times and the people involved. if you wanted to spoil yourself the surest way was tto be a bore on the cricket fiekld