The Trial of Gibbs

The issue of race has always been inextricably entwined with cricket. The international game, born in the crucible of colonialism, became a way for the colonies to project their own character and individualism, and quite literally beat the English at their own game. There were the powerful and athletic West Indians who played their cricket with exuberance and flair, the 'mystic' wristy brilliance of the Indians, and the combative, Australians. All three came to express themselves on the cricket pitch in a fundamentally different way from the often dour and correct English, and that unquestionably made the world game what it is. Between the break up of colonialism and the formation of test cricket as we know it today, race has stamped itself on the game in various different ways: from D'Oliveira to blackwashes, quota systems and Kashmir.
Yet in the past year we have seen that racial tensions have not left cricket, and perhaps it is naive to think they ever will. South African batsman Herschelle Gibbs has received a two test ban for an ill-advised comment picked up on the stump microphones during the first test against Pakistan at Centurion Park. For those unfamiliar, several somewhat over-exuberant Pakistani fans were hurling abuse at South African spinner Paul Harris. Gibbs was heard to remark audibly - to thousands of people on five continents around the world - that they were "a bunch of bloody animals." At the time it seemed the comment was aimed at the Pakistani players, which, as pointed out in no uncertain terms by the commentators at the time, would have been utterly unacceptable. Sledging of the opposition can walk a fine line between the comic and the insulting, but it is a perfectly legitimate facet of test cricket if it walks that line carefully: as evidenced in the recent Ashes series.
Gibbs' comment was not aimed at his opponents however, but toward the fans abusing his team-mate. While his words were distasteful and badly chosen in any context, what would the punishment, if any, have been for the fans had they been calling Harris a 'bloody animal'? What if it had not been Harris but Hashim Amla who was the focus of their abuse? What if the fans had been white, and Harris from Asian extraction?
South Africans are obviously no strangers to racism: on their tour of Australia in 05/06 they were mercilessly targetted, and not just the black players Ntini and Prince, but also the whites in the team, who were taunted as "kaffir boettjes" (meaning 'brother of a nigger'). One could forgive the South African players for muttering a few frustrated oaths between themselves, and the merits of the 'animals' moniker could certainly be discussed. In that situation the South African players did the right thing, by making their displeasure known to the relevant authorities. The ICC labelled it as an 'isolated incident', and did absolutely nothing as is their want, but it was still the right thing for the players to do. Gibbs misjudged matters badly in his retort last week, and showed scant regard for the Pakistani batsmen out in the middle, but should he be the one made an example of for his own foolishness?
Why a man who grew up in post-apartheid South Africa, plays in the same team as a Muslim, and has himself been on the wrong side of verbal abuse, would purposefully be racist to fans is anyone's guess. Whether the comment was racially motivated or not is something that is not apparently clear: if it was then Gibbs should definitely serve his ban in silence. However, Gibbs should not be singled out and crucified for this once incident: it is clear that there is still a certain amount of racism in cricket around the world, as they is in wider society. But to expect players to conduct themselves as saints in front of verbal barrages from fans is not always fair.