LONDON: The debate about racism in sport has resurfaced against the backdrop of global protests, spearheaded by the Black Lives Matter movement since the death in May of George Floyd, the 46-year-old unarmed African-American man, after a white police officer in Minneapolis knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes while he was being restrained. This has manifested itself in unintentional and coincidental consequences. First it was students and other activists at Oriel College, Oxford University, who were clamouring for the removal of the statue of its controversial benefactor, Cecil John Rhodes, the arch-imperialist and Premier of the Cape Colony (in the Western Cape in South Africa) between 1890-1896, and then it was the England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) acknowledging that the English game is not bereft of institutionalised racism and that the Board would launch in investigation to bring” meaningful and long-term change” in the English game. All in the space of one month, June 2020.

Thanks to a brilliant new book ‘Too Black to Wear Whites’ (Penguin Books), authors Jonty Winch and Richard Parry have meticulously unearthed the colonial roots of racism in cricket which started with the British Empire and the nefarious role Rhodes played in setting the template for the institutionalisation of racism in cricket when he barred one William Henry ‘Krom’ Hendricks from inclusion in the all-white South African team to tour England in 1894 purely on the grounds of his mixed race heritage.

In this exclusive interview Mushtak Parker discusses with Winch and Parry the compelling story of Krom Hendricks; the racist shenanigans of Rhodes; the implications of the Oriel and ECB initiatives and the impact on cricket transformation in post-apartheid South Africa and in the international game.

Mushtak Parker: How important and timely are the Oxford and ECB decisions relating to removing Rhodes’s statue and ordering an investigation into racism in the English game? Or are they merely being forced into reactive gestures from a politically-correct activism?

Richard Parry: I am sure that the motivation behind this is reactive but nonetheless I think they are important actions. The removal of the statue is clearly an important symbolic act for Oxford University itself bringing it a little closer to recognising mainstream and working-class concerns.

It also reflects a more literate approach to history both by encouraging the understanding of the real nature of Empire, the brutality of colonialism and the asset stripping which Rhodes and his ilk were responsible for. It is a chance to clarify the relationship between the past and the present. While we cannot change history, we do interpret what it means in the light of today’s realities. Part of this is deciding who/what lives we now want to celebrate.

The ECB investigation into racism is also important but I’m concerned that it will simply be a chance to buy time and avoid action. There have been plenty of reviews and we know many of the answers for creating a game that reflects all communities now. Putting the resources into schools, paying teachers to qualify and act as coaches, repurchasing playing fields and sharing grounds with clubs, having a scholarship system for black players, appointing county reps to work with the Muslim and other communities etc. We need to implement these things now while we review further, not use the review as an excuse for delay which is the standard establishment approach to issues.

Jonty Winch: If Rhodes’s statue disappears, then what? We will have removed a relevant reminder of the past that leads us to question imperialism. One applauds the ECB’s attempt to try to bring ‘meaningful and long term-change’. At the same time, it is difficult not to view the ECB’s decision as one where they were ‘forced into a reactive gesture from a politically-correct activism?’ Sport administrations should already have in place ongoing processes that report and examine the issue of racism within their respective codes. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) review of fans singing ‘Swing Low, Sweet Chariot’ (the anti-slavery lyric) appears to be no more than a case of: ‘publicity achieved, prime minister Johnson has acknowledged it – box ticked’.

Parker: In a historical context, how far will these decisions contribute to the de-institutionalisation of racism in cricket (and perhaps other sports) or is racism too entrenched even in the modern game when governments, cricket bodies, officials, the media and even players still tend to partake in covert and benign racism that even they tend not to be aware of?

Parry: Racism is entrenched at the top of the structure but there is some hope. There are key figures who understand the issue and have the capacity to make significant changes happen. Kumar Sangakkara, MS Dhoni, Otis Gibson, Brian Lara, Makhaya Ntini, Paul Adams, Wasim Akram, Ebony Railsford, Isha Guha and even Mike Brearley, Michael Atherton and Graeme Smith can provide the lead in this area if they are brought into the ECB review and are influential in the ICC (International Cricket Conference) Committees. If the review is the usual bunch of white male stuffed shirts and businessmen, it will go nowhere.

Winch: Hiding Rhodes’s statue – especially at a centre of learning – does not contribute to the deinstitutionalisation of racism. It is a short-sighted move as people will unwittingly become less curious and less inclined to engage with an issue that is central to a controversial period in British history and relevant to the modern world.

An image of Rhodes appears on the cover of Too Black to Wear Whites, together with reference to him in the sub-title, but it does not contribute to the ‘institutionalisation’ of racism. It draws attention to new research that attempts to uncover the influence – the pain and inhumanity – that Rhodes and fellow imperialists inflicted on people whilst formalising segregation in sport in southern Africa.

One route to enlightenment is to explore the past and ask questions. Ramachandra Guha exposed Lord Harris’s racist administration in India, others exposed Harris’s treatment of Ranjitsinhji at Lord’s. One now questions Sir Derek Birley’s excessive admiration for the former England captain, administrator and governor.

Forms of racism will probably occur as long as nations across the world compete against one another. It is ‘entrenched’ but, at the same time, cannot go unchallenged. Perhaps the teaching of history needs to resume its proper place at the forefront of classroom learning. In December 1998, Cricket South Africa adopted the Transformation Charter, with a committee formed to encourage projects aimed at enabling South Africans to understand their history and themselves. ‘Too Black to Wear Whites’ is one of the publications to emerge. According to André Odendaal, chairperson of the transformation monitoring committee, it is a story that ‘desperately needed to be written’.

The fact that it has appeared – along with other books and projects that support transformation in cricket – does not mean that André’s work is over. Far from it.

Parker: What can the modern game and its various stakeholders learn from the Krom Hendricks/Rhodes experience?

Parry: Covert racism is hiding throughout the game. The lesson that we can learn from Hendricks is how this racism works. It’s not just top down. It’s not just the big picture of Rhodes pulling the plug. The racism that Hendricks really suffered from was the daily racism shared by the players and fans. Everyone wanted to see Hendricks play. But who beyond Frank Robb in the media, the government and clubs supported him? No one. We need to understand this history and interpret it in the light of the present.

Winch: Legacies of racism and oppression shape our lives. The Krom Hendricks experience is arguably the single most powerful story in sporting racism. He was the central figure in the evolution of sports segregation in southern Africa which in time would affect tens of thousands of sportspeople across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

As segregation became an overriding philosophy in South African sport, it was allowed to expand rapidly through the support it received from politicians, administrators, journalists, players, spectators, businessmen, headmasters, etc … as well as countries willing to turn a blind eye to what was happening. Enforced separation lasted nearly one hundred years and ultimately required a worldwide campaign to bring it to an end.

The modern game and its stakeholders cannot afford to become embroiled in a situation that spirals out of control. The cricket landscape in South Africa might have been very different had Hendricks been selected for South Africa. That it did not happen was the fault of English-speaking whites who claimed to be upholding their civilisation and standards. That they knew they had done wrong is evident in their numerous and deliberate efforts to air-brush Hendricks and non-European cricket from the game’s literature. Attempts to shut one’s eyes to black cricket continued until well into the 1990s.

Parker: As you both maintain in the book, there may be many Krom Hendricks's in history and even some still today given the vagaries of the rise of populist and ethnic-based politics. How important is it for cricket like other sports to exorcise these past demons from the colonial cupboards of racism? In other words, cricket can only move forward if past ‘misdeeds’ are exposed, articulated and re-positioned for the current and next generations of both society and cricketers?

Parry: Yes, that’s true. But we shouldn’t make a fetish of it. We need to understand and move on, not foster old grudges and get mired in historical enmities. Cricket and sport in South Africa have always been divisive. We need to start seeing it in a different way – as a mechanism to unite a still significantly divided society.

We need to look harder into history for the means to do so. Look for example at the Barney Barnato issue. In 1898, the GWCCU (Griqualand West Cricket Union) included Bud Mbelle and others and framed a non-racial cricket union. In the 1930s, it split on ethnic lines and by the end of the 1950s SACBOC (the South African Cricket Board of Control) had brought it back and cricket played of course the key role in South African international relations for the next decade. What can we learn from that journey?

Winch: It is important to revisit old sporting narratives. In South Africa, Maurice W. Luckin’s supposedly comprehensive History of South African Cricket (1915) became the standard reference book for the country’s cricket. He rubber-stamped the racist view that only whites mattered in South Africa, in cricket and life. Other writers followed, adopting the same trend in various histories for cricket, rugby and other sports.

As a consequence, there has been an urgent need to address South Africa’s sporting history. In cricket, for example, only part of its history had been recorded. It has been important to establish that discrimination in sport did not begin with the (Afrikaner) National Party and apartheid in 1948. And the first to suffer were not Basil D’Oliveira and his group of players that included the Abed brothers, Owen Williams, Cec Abrahams, Ben Malamba, Chong Meyer, Eric Petersen and so on.

The ’misdeeds’ began with Cecil John Rhodes and early cricket administrators forcing their class-based ideology of social segregation upon Cape sportsmen during the 1890s. Milton’s actions clearly exposed the hypocrisy of the idea that public schools were able to exercise authority over other races in a reasonable and selfless manner.

The expression, ‘many Krom Hendricks’s’ might convey the idea of promising sportsmen across different sports who were denied opportunities. The key issue here is that the same establishment figures in cricket were dominant in administering rugby. Notable were Milton who persuaded the Cape to play rugby; Billy Simkins the president of the S.A. Rugby Football Board during 1890-1913, and Louis Smuts, described as ‘the uncrowned king of the Western Province Rugby Football Union’. They were racist administrators opposed to a liberal tradition that had allowed mixed-race sport.

Simkins, who told members of the Western Province Cricket Union (WPCU) in 1897 that they should use all means at their disposal to ensure the two classes ‘be kept distinctly separate’, directed policy in rugby. During the 1880s, he ensured the races were separated through a club structure that he insisted on implementing. The system was successful insofar as the white administrators did not face the drama that cricket experienced. But, in the same way as the WPCU hid behind a resolution that prevented Hendricks from playing ‘championship’ cricket, so Simkins and Smuts were involved in the imposition of constitutional racial restrictions for rugby.

Parker: Are you guys optimistic about the future of non-racial cricket in South Africa (warts and all)?

Parry: I’m always optimistic. But I’m realistic too, I hope. Non-racial cricket will survive as something other than a bean fest for the elites if we nurture the origins and understand the roots of black cricket – in the Bo Kaap, in the Eastern Cape, in Stanger, on the mines. We need to reseed the ground in these places – support them to play, celebrate their history and achievements, provide channels for advancements and build sustainable structures linked to community. But most of all we need to develop school programmes in the townships that start with food and move on to cricket. And township kids should be given free tickets and transport to all important matches. Spread that enthusiasm.

Winch: The schools have traditionally been the strength of South African cricket. The talent produced every year enabled South Africa to survive ‘isolation’ and continue to provide high-quality players for the country’s various teams – as well as for England, Australia and New Zealand! With the famous ‘cricket’ schools open to all races, there is reason to believe that the game should be even stronger. But is it? There doesn’t seem to be the same depth of talent emerging. Perhaps it’s simply a period of rebuilding and, given the chance, new players will succeed. Unfortunately, recent articles emphasise the chaotic state of the administration.

Parker: What would Krom Hendricks have made of the Oxford and ECB decisions and indeed your book ‘Too Black to Wear Whites’? Is he turning in his grave or smiling wryly thinking: "Its bloody time. I have been waiting for 126 years for something like this to happen!”

Parry: Good question. I bet he’s astonished at the kind of change that has taken place, while at the same time he’s impatient with how few things have actually changed, and still maybe not absolutely certain if he can get a game. If he’s read the book, I hope he’s saying, ‘Who the hell are these bastards. They got it all wrong! But I’m glad they’ve done it’.

Winch: Krom Hendricks would be somewhat bemused by Englishmen not only protesting against a statue of the arch-imperialist Rhodes, but also announcing concern over the well-being of black cricket players. It is all so different from his day. Hendricks, described as ‘modest and retiring in demeanour’ would probably say very little.

He was a remarkable man. He suffered enormous disappointment through his non-selection for South Africa and other representative teams. He was also openly humiliated at meetings and in the press by those administrators and critics who made vicious racist comments. Admittedly, he was caught in the colonial web, and there was little he could do. Yet, there was never any outward demonstration of bitterness. He supported the same people who treated him badly by raising funds for the war effort.

I don’t believe Hendricks would be keen to read the detailed account of his life in Too Black to Wear Whites. For him, it would be a case of revisiting the discrimination he had suffered. He loved cricket but did not speak to his family about his early experiences.

He would be more interested in reading about several developments after his death. He would probably show interest in the progress of the son of a player he would have known, Lewis D’Oliveira (father of Basil). He might also be amused by Owen Williams’s refusal to tour Australia in 1971/72 ‘as a glorified baggage master’, a statement uncannily echoing Hendricks’s remark in 1894. But more than anything else, he would be delighted to learn that his grandson played football for Liverpool. Hendricks almost certainly helped develop the ball skills that saw Robert Priday play for Cape Town City prior to moving to England.

-- BERNAMA

Mushtak Parker is a London-based independent economist and writer.