England’s foreign-born Test cricketers

this post was written by me ^

wow this is what i call a living article.Maybe you should re-release it.Add Stokes,Ballance ,etc and start the debate again. Brilliant article .

Here is the list of overseas born cricketers of India INDIA: L Amarnath* Lahore (now in Pakistan) Amir Elahi Lahore (now in Pakistan) Dilawar Hussain Lahore (now in Pakistan) SA Durani Kabul, Afghanistan A Gandotra Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Gul Mahomed Lahore (now in Pakistan) JK Irani Karachi (now in Pakistan) Abdul Hafeez (Kardar) Lahore (now in Pakistan) G Kishenchand Karachi (now in Pakistan) Lall Singh Kuala Lumpur, Malaya (now Malaysia) RR Singh Princes Town, Trinidad Naoomal Jeoomal Karachi (now in Pakistan) PH Punjabi Karachi (now in Pakistan) GS Ramchand Karachi (now in Pakistan) P Sen Comilla, Bengal (now in Bangladesh) MM Sood Lahore (now in Pakistan)

Dave He is a Sri Lankan origin.. Born In Australia Played for England

Matt Price? Ian Trott?

Robin Jackman and Bob Woolmer was born in India, but are originally English. Andrew Caddick was born in New Zealand but originally is English. There are few cricketers that were born in another nation but are English originally.

It may well be Westy. There is one Australian politician on record as saying he looks forward to the day when whites are in the minority in the land they built. Pity I can't remember his name, because really it should never be forgotten. As an Englishman I take no pleasure in the Ashes win. Why should I when my own nation is so poorly represented? Mind you Ponting's of English descent (though he probably wouldn;t thank you for saying so). I'd be more than happy to have him if he ever got fed up of being slated by the Australian press. Still one of the greats for me.

I see you've absorbed the nomenclature of liberal theology. Whites who oppose their own destruction are 'extreme' and 'right-wing'. What you do not say is why I am wrong. Of course it's curiosity to some that whites who campaign fearlessly for the right of tribal (i.e. non-white) cultures wouldn't be seen dead campaigning for their own, but then self-hatred is like air in a balloon. Suppress it and it just pops up elsewhere.

“All non-white groups favour multiculturalism because it ensures access to white lands and the kind of life they are incapable of providing for themselves.”
 DASILVA: - It’s just ensures that jobs and immigrations are done via merit rather then on racial grounds. Skilled migration which makes up majority of migration ensures that the best and most well qualified people comes into the country to contribute to the economy and society rather than arbitrary differences in skin colour. Multiculturalism is viewed as an essential part of meritocracy. BRAINBITER: - It ‘ensures’ no such thing. It might be a worthwhile aim if ability were evenly distributed across human groups. It is not evenly distributed and so it is not worthwhile, leaving us again with the unspoken agenda of improving the lot of the many at the expense of the few, or destroying what has been built by the only people capable of building anything in the first place (and before people start attributing every invention under the sun to China, as is the current fashion, let me make clear that I consider that a separate subject altogether). “The races of men are different. ”
 DASILVA: - Well people with darker skin pigments are more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency as they absorb less light. they also less likely to develop skin cancer for similar reason There are also various genetic attributes (such as susceptible to disease such as cystic fibrosis which is more common amongst caucasion and thallasaemia which is more common in mediterannean and african countries) that are more common within certain ethnic origins. Although saying that, race is just a surrogate marker for susceptible to disease not the cause of it. There are differences in the demographics of physiology between different race. However you haven’t exactly point out the relevance of these differences to justify a monocultural society. BRAINBITER: - You are correct about susceptibility to disease. That is why pharmaceutical companies have been pressing for years to develop race-specific drugs. I just don’t understand it’s relevance, save perhaps as a further warning against miscegenation. If you approve of ‘diversity’ you cannot but want to preserve the unique characteristics of every people and racial grouping. Indeed this is the official position ideologically. It just isn’t allowed to apply to whites. Now what could be the reason for that do you suppose? “To propose a better one, begin by understanding that miscegenation destroys BOTH the races that indulge in it, and that multiculturalism (actually multiracialism) is systematic racial (therefore cultural) genocide ” DASILVA: - You are basing on a premise that your own racial identity is actually important. If both races are destroyed due to people intermarrying and having children (or you can argue you are creating a new race). So what? BRAINBITER: - Race is important for the reasons outlined in my previous answer. If you cannot understand these reasons there is very little more I can add. Perhaps you believe all those silly American TV shows where white people play criminals and non-whites play the detectives, judges, computer experts, forensic scientists and lawyers charged with arresting, trying and jailing them. If so I cannot help you. DASILVA: - About destruction of culture.
I define culture as the collective values, beliefs and customs that any particular group shares. However, the one thing often overlook is that culture is something fluidic. Culture always changes. The culture of today’s society is different to the culture hundred years ago which is also different hundred years before that. It changes when society critically evaluate their own values and then abandon values that are no longer relevant and adopt new ideas if it improves society….. ………I’ll also add that race and culture are not the same thing. Your race doesn’t determine the values a person has…’ BRAINBITER: - I did not say race and culture were the same thing. I said they were that one was an outgrowth of the other. Historically, for example, rule-governed behaviour shifted us away from family and vendetta to an external system of principles, or law, that made it possible for us to live in larger groups. This system does not suit everyone, however, as the difficulties of blacks in adjusting to white society clearly demonstrate. Because blacks are not white people with a melanin problem. They are physically different, differences that govern everything from urine retention to brain size to bone density and much else besides. Differential biology means differential psychology. Quite simply black people are more disposed to respond violently, and with less provocation, than whites. This can be modified by cultural prohibitions, but is inherent and as such cannot be changed by it. That is why cultures develop organically around this principle (let’s leave modern electronic culture aside for the moment), developing locally, appropriate to the needs of those best suited to it. I’d like to add more but - apologies - I think we'll have to leave it there for now. Happy New Year DaSilva.

On a more serious note I Australia could have done with the fighting and combative qualities of Andrew Symonds in some of the critical sessions of the Gabba / Adelaide and MCG tests. I certainly hope no one calls Usman a monkey .

In my patch in western sydney ithe range of skin colours , physiques and facial characteistics is immense . The truly alarming fact is none of them can spin a ball ! It should be a requirement for future citizenship !

"All non-white groups favour multiculturalism because it ensures access to white lands and the kind of life they are incapable of providing for themselves." It's just ensures that jobs and immigrations are done via merit rather then on racial grounds. Skilled migration which makes up majority of migration ensures that the best and most well qualified people comes into the country to contribute to the economy and society rather than arbitrary differences in skin colour Multiculturalism is viewed as an essential part of meritocracy. "The races of men are different. " Well people with darker skin pigments are more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency as they absorb less light. they also less likely to develop skin cancer for similar reason There are also various genetic attributes (such as susceptible to disease such as cystic fibrosis which is more common amongst caucasion and thallasaemia which is more common in mediterannean and african countries) that are more common within certain ethnic origins. Although saying that, race is just a surrogate marker for susceptible to disease not the cause of it. There are differences in the demographics of physiology between different race However you haven't exactly point out the relevance of these differences to justify a monocultural society. "To propose a better one, begin by understanding that miscegenation destroys BOTH the races that indulge in it, and that multiculturalism (actually multiracialism) is systematic racial (therefore cultural) genocide " You are basing on a premise that your own racial identity is actually important. If both races are destroyed due to people intermarrying and having children (or you can argue you are creating a new race). So what? About destruction of culture. I define culture as the collective values, beliefs and customs that any particular group shares. However, the one thing often overlook is that culture is something fluidic. Culture always changes. The culture of today’s society is different to the culture hundred years ago which is also different hundred years before that. It changes when society critically evaluate their own values and then abandon values that are no longer relevant and adopt new ideas if it improves society. If we look at every society, there have generally existed people who are progressive political beliefs who points out in their opinions the problems in society that has to change and the traditionalist who supports the status quo. One of the aspects of the political left and right divide is whether you are a traditionalist or progressive. What happens is that there is always a constant debate about the values of a society between the two sides and eventually if there is a change, one side will convince the majority of the population to reject previously traditional values or adopt new values. Hence, the society ends up creating a new status quo and new tradition. So I have absolutely no problem with the destruction of culture because culture is continually destroying itself and rebuilding throughout history. whether a value or belief is part of someone’s culture or not, that doesn’t tell us the quality of the values or beliefs. An idea is either a good idea or a bad idea (or a neutral idea, or shades of gray idea). The value of an idea lives and dies on its own merits and this doesn't change whether that is part of their culture or not. When someone defends a social belief or practice as ‘It is part of our culture/tradition’, then that argument has to be rejected due to shear irrelevance. So bring on the challenge of culture that multicultural brings. It's true that some cultures do practice believes and values that I believe is wrong and therefore migrants who do come to this country have to understand that this is unacceptable. Then again I also believe that some practices in the country I live in is also wrong and that sometimes other countries got it right and I believe that we should change and be more like them. In the end cultural practices has to be based on logical and good reasons to justify the continuation of their practice and they don't have any intrinsic value on its own. So you going on about the genocide of our culture is pretty much irrelevant. There will be destruction of culture even without immigration as there will always be challenge to the traditional values of society. I'll also add that race and culture are not the same thing. Your race doesn't determine the values a person has

Jacks contributions are fascinating in their own way. Extreme right-wing groups always prosper in times of adversity but I seriously doubt if not winning the Ashes is up there with economic blight and civil unrest! Possibly Jack will propose that the Aussie team play in whites - sheets, that is...with the baggy greens perched on top! That'll show the non-whites who's the boss.

DASILVA: “So because other countries have laws that discriminate racially and other people demonstrate ethnic and racial pride therefore it’s ok for everyone else to demonstrate that?” - Yes. More than okay: necessary, just and wholly desirable. DASILVA: “I have a pretty low tolerance to ethnic groups as well as other countries who pride themselves on ethnic differences and I consider those people to be morally wrong but I hate to see the rest of the population make the same mistake.” - All non-white groups favour multiculturalism because it ensures access to white lands and the kind of life they are incapable of providing for themselves. Lofty pronouncements are simply a disguise for self-interest. And since European civilization’s fiercest critics exert more pressure than anyone to be admitted to it we have to ask what is wrong about defending what we have built, since what has been achieved will be lost if we carry on as we are. People are not interchangeable parts in some vast economic game. The races of men are different. This premise is critical to my argument but, like Jak, you make no mention of it. DASILVA: “The answer is to call other countries out on their lack of multiculturalism not change our ways.” - No it is not. Changes presently underway are rooted in the determination of bankers to make the world a borderless playground for a few hundred elite families. People taught nothing about biology, and fed a lot of guff about ‘one human family’, therefore strive to make sense of change by investing ideology with a moral perspective it doesn’t actually possess, and cannot possess, since benefits accrued by one group derive from disadvantages forcibly imposed on another. The answer you propose merely compounds this folly. To propose a better one, begin by understanding that miscegenation destroys BOTH the races that indulge in it, and that multiculturalism (actually multiracialism) is systematic racial (therefore cultural) genocide and nothing to do with making the world a better place.

So because other countries have laws that discriminate racially and other people demonstrate ethnic and racial pride therefore it's ok for everyone else to demonstrate that? I have a pretty low tolerance to ethnic groups as well as other countries who pride themselves on ethnic differences and I consider those people to be morally wrong but I hate to see the rest of the population make the same mistake. The answer is to call other countries out on their lack of multiculturalism not change our ways.

You do not identify yourself racially, which is central to the argument I made earlier, but you miss the point in any event, or choose to. Ask whether others around the world are as keen as you to ‘demonstrate tolerance’. The evidence is ‘no’. ‘Multiculturalism’ is imposed. It is imposed on white people and ONLY on white people. It isn't your fault you dress up self-loathing in the debased language of progress. The real culprit is christian dogma, which makes a virtue of impulses most normal people feel ashamed of, and which tells people they are ‘bigots’ unless they act as accomplices to their own destruction. As writer Steve Sailer puts it: “You see, if non-whites aren't exactly the same as everybody else, well, that would be a bad thing, and only bad people believe bad things might be true, and if anybody called me a bad person I would just die”. But if the older generation’s role is to nurture the young, ensuring continuity, the only reason to endorse a ‘generosity’ effectively built on sacrificing it is personal vanity. Our children will spit on our graves. What people refuse to defend, Jak, gets taken from them. What they ‘tolerate’ they get more of.

born and raised in england, a natural sportsman i played all sports. migrating to australia in 85, i have served in the ADF aquired citezenship and integrated very well. if i had been scouted in my youth as a dynamic freeflowing run scoring cricket sensation and asked to play in the baggy green, im sure the cricket loving press and public in this fair land would lap me up and give me full support. no issue would be made of my birth country because i would be considered an AUSSIE,(wouldnt i) just like all the other sportsmen and women(TO MANY TO NAME) who were not born here but represent australia in a vast array of competetive arenas. many just come here because they cannot get a gig in their birth countries and are then fast tracked to be eligible to compete. do the aussie people complain when they wear the green and gold, do they yell and scream go back to your own country. NO WE DONT. to all whinging aussies out there, move out of your glass house or stop throwing stones. england has been a multicultural nation for a lot longer than australia and is demonstrating its tolerance. we should do the same here. GET OVER IT.

Commendable research and an interesting, if self-serving, article. Contributors like ‘Tigerface’, where they are white, think accusations of ‘racism’ a defence against exposing their own lack of courage. Those who are not white incline to the term out of natural expediency, of course, to protect a privileged position in the new dispensation. Either way we are missing the issue. The first question to ask is ‘what is a nation?’. The second is, ‘Should only those who belong to a nation represent it on the international stage?’ Two distinct entities are available to us. The first is new. It is a bankers’ or civic nationality. This is internationalist (communist) in principle. It offers a fluid, off-the-peg identity very much related to Millian conceptions of ‘homo economicus’. In practice, and as we are seeing more and more in cricket and other sports, not even where one is born trumps political (and personal) convenience. The second distinct conception is that of ethnic identity. This defines a nation by ties of blood and precedence or even just a shared belief that such ties exist. Results tend to homogeneity and improved internal stability. The word ‘nation’ comes from the Latin and relates to blood kinship. Nations are therefore an outgrowth of racial biology. Countries are not nations. Countries are spaces within which nations live. ‘White supremacism’ cannot exist where only whites live. It is ethnic loyalties that run most of the world. Only in white countries is ‘diversity’ imposed by force of law. The article lists birth countries, ignoring what was once regarded as the Anglosphere, and which made racial origin a precondition of selection until liberals used the D’Oliviera case to manipulate public sentiment. Non-white players should be ineligible for England because they not English. Selection of whites with blood ties to our nation is permissible up to a second or third generation but no more. Isn’t it precisely what you would demand of your own country were the positions reversed? As it is you know an orchestrated, racially-motivated attack on western civilization will always leave plenty of room for universalist sentiment among those who stand to gain by expressing it. As a Sikh friend who works for the Commission for Racial Equality in England replied when asked how people on the Indian sub-continent would react to the sort of immigration being imposed on the English, ‘It wouldn’t happen. Too much rope, too many lamposts.’ This all-pervading universalism is really the nub of the issue. Professor Garrett Hardin describes universalism in the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ as ‘altruism practised without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, propinquity in time or space’. Proudhon, more succinctly perhaps, put it like this: “If everyone is my brother, I have no brothers”. I have brothers. You have them too. The difference is that mine are English and therefore, by definition, white. If the word ‘nation’ means anything at all it means being represented by your own.

Tigerface, There was no offence meant in that article, just an interesting observation. I also did companion stories for The Roar on Foreign-born Australian Test cricketers on 22-9-09 and Foreign-born South African Test cricketers on 13-9-09. I do unusual stories like Test cricketers who have represented their countries in other sports (rugby, hockey, football...), nicknames of cricketers... I love all countries, India because I was born there, Australia because I'm happily settled here. I would love to visit England, New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa, Spain, France, Kenya, Zimbabwe. Hope you'll understand my motive. It is to give readers something different than what they read about in newspapers and see on TV.

I’m bored with the constant Australian whinging about England’s ‘foreign’ players. The overt racism in many of the comments is uniquely Australian. I’m not sure that many Australian are aware that there are million of first and second generations of immigrants who consider themselves English. None of this rubbish Aussie “I’m more Aussie than you because I’m white” rubbish. Lets get the truth out there. Australia fielded an Olympic squad in 2008 that included 75 athletes who weren’t born in Australia. GB fielded.......two. This makes sense because Australia is a nation developed on immigration. The idea of Australian’s getting all angst about national purity is the funniest thing I’ve heard in my life.