Racism rethink
In broad strokes the cricket controversy: Here is a brown man accused of racially abusing a (technically) black man in a white man's backyard.
And we'll come to who is taking offense in a bit.
Does that resonate with any stereotypes you have in mind? Not so with me. The point being that I think that racism is an "ism" that brings to mind historic hostilities and persecution. That's the whole reason why being called a "racist" carries so much more of a stigma than being simply called say "hateful" or "spiteful."
If somebody does hurl a racially motivated abuse at another but it doesn't fit the stereo type then yes he is technically a "racist" but the word carries a charge that the word acquired for different reasons.
So In my opinion, the whole thing has a genuine word play angle to it. The rule book cannot split the term "racism" into the Apartheid strain and the strain that is no doubt racially motivated but the targeted race has no hurt to feed (which in fact makes it a useless barb in comparison to say alleged incest?)
To make that split explicit would unfortunately be both politically incorrect and lead to ugly court proceedings with the history books brought in.
So we are stuck with the same clause governing both and that sucks.
We could ask: Are the Australia Aboriginal community up and arms against this whole monkey business.?
My guess is not.
And we'll come to who is taking offense in a bit.
Does that resonate with any stereotypes you have in mind? Not so with me. The point being that I think that racism is an "ism" that brings to mind historic hostilities and persecution. That's the whole reason why being called a "racist" carries so much more of a stigma than being simply called say "hateful" or "spiteful."
If somebody does hurl a racially motivated abuse at another but it doesn't fit the stereo type then yes he is technically a "racist" but the word carries a charge that the word acquired for different reasons.
So In my opinion, the whole thing has a genuine word play angle to it. The rule book cannot split the term "racism" into the Apartheid strain and the strain that is no doubt racially motivated but the targeted race has no hurt to feed (which in fact makes it a useless barb in comparison to say alleged incest?)
To make that split explicit would unfortunately be both politically incorrect and lead to ugly court proceedings with the history books brought in.
So we are stuck with the same clause governing both and that sucks.
We could ask: Are the Australia Aboriginal community up and arms against this whole monkey business.?
My guess is not.