Wisden India : Is it time to retire the word 'Chinaman' from cricket
Shamya Dasgupta writes for Wisden India about the coining of the term "Chinaman" in cricket and how its racist roots have made it important for the cricketing fraternity to abolish the word all together. Dasgupta also questioned why a left arm offie is, even today, called ‘left-arm orthodox’.
From Wisden India:
I hemmed and hawed, spoke of Ellis Achong, and did what I could to get her past the cover. No go. “It’s racist,” she argued. “I can’t believe you don’t have a problem with it.” I do, actually, I offered, but, you know, that’s just how it has always been, and nobody seems to mind. Wu does, though. As does Geoff Lemon, the wonderful Australian journalist who has written so often for Wisden India.
In any case, the term stuck after Trinidadian Achong, nicknamed ‘Puss’, had Walter Robins stumped with a wrist-spinner during the 1933 Old Trafford Test. All records put Achong down as a left-arm orthodox spinner, but he seems to have befuddled Robins with one that was delivered with a rotation of the wrist, a left-armer’s legbreak. The story, widely accepted, goes that Robins remarked on his way back, or after reaching the dressing room, “Fancy being done in by a bloody Chinaman.” Achong was the first man of Chinese origin to play Test cricket.
Now, I am a great one for tradition but to excuse racism for it makes no sense. It’s criminal, really. And cricket – or the world at large – should have no space for it. Chinaman should really be rechristened left-arm legspin, because that’s what it is. The same way Mankading should be regarded as just another run out, and descriptions of it mention the non-striker’s irresponsible behaviour and the bowler’s smarts and nothing else. Handling the ball recently went out of the crictionary, how tough can it be to remove Chinaman?
Read the full article here.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Comments
Sign up or log in to your account to leave comments and reactions
0 Comments