My first ever top-post post on the new fray asked the question: "Is this racist?"

It referenced Lewis Hamilton, the brilliant Formula One black British rookie driver leading the Championship points race.

In a sport even whiter than Hockey, Hamilton is the first black to compete.

An announcer found it necessary at the time to assure his audience that Hamilton was well-spoken, personable, decent.

Today, Lewis Hamilton lost the Championship in the closest contested points race ever in the near century long history of Gran Prix racing. He tied for second with 109 points, the winner receiving 110 points.

That same announcer reported thusly today (paraphrase): "The blond, blue-eyed Norseman wins the championship! The swarthy, curly black haired Spaniard takes second, and the first black man ever to challenge the championship takes third! This is truly an international sport!"

Finn Iceman Kimi Raikkonen won, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton tied for second, Ferrari won the Constructors championship.

The announcer's comment seemed innocuous, paean to internationality and equality, but struck me as just a bit...triumphal: not overtly racist nor deliberately demeaning, but evocative of an exclusionary ethos.

I doubt this announcer intended anything racist with his observation, and I doubt his subtle message of triumph tempered by egalitarianism will generate much concern, but...but...

...is this racist?

That same announcer reported thusly today (paraphrase): "The blond, blue-eyed Norseman wins the championship! The swarthy, curly black haired Spaniard takes second, and the first black man ever to challenge the championship takes third! This is truly an international sport!"

I don't think this statement is racist. I do think the often heard comments about a Black person being articulate, well-spoken and personable constitutes latent racism, although I think the offense is done more out of ignorance than with intent.

Describing a Black person as articulate always seem to indicate that Black people, as a rule, are not articulate (which, as a rule, they are not). But then, as a rule, most people are not very articulate.

To be honest though, I have seen interviews with people in Mississippi, or Georgia, or other places where people often tend to speak in less than proper English, and the interviewee is a well-spoken, articulate individual, and I have thought to myself...this guy talks pretty good for a sheephumper.

Jack

I'm not a UT fan (although I am happy when they win). My favorite college team is Alabama.

Jack

"Sheephumper" was a football reference. Not unlike the "Rocky Mountain Ramfucker" reference to my old unit, the Rocky Mountain Rangers.

Gotcha.

Doc

It acknowledged the breadth of nationalities involved. Didn't disparage any of them. And probably said what everyone watching the race was thinking. Where's the harm? No blood, no foul.

I'm a racist. You're a racist. When we acknowledge that, we approximate enlightenment, and can chuckle about how silly it is. It's the people who say "what me? I never even think about race! how dare you suggest it!" that are genuinely scary. They are plotting something. Something bad.

I'm not sure about the racism here. The announcer gives a lot of "racial" or "ethnic" specificity to the Finnish and Spanish guys but does leaves Lewis Hamilton as a kind of generic "black man." Generally speaking, American racist discourse leaves the home racial group of the speaker in a state of neutral individuality. The casual racism of American speakers would have portrayed Raikonnen more as an individual than a "blond, blue-eyed Norseman" while associating specific qualities with the racial group being stereotyped.

Moreover, I don't see a lot of racial hostility here. The text reads as though the announcer was genuinely excited about Hamilton's status as the first black man competing for the championship and the general internationalism of Formula One Racing. Perhaps his particular formulation of that excitement was awkward enough that he should be more careful in the future.

But I don't see that particular call of the race as a racist statement.

I believe it's completely racist, but not remotely horrific or harmful.

You seem to imply that, as long as only blondes are objectified, it's not racist. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

And don't pretend to be a girl again, lest I pop you in the snoot. The effrontery!

"It's the people who say "what me? I never even think about race! how dare you suggest it!" that are genuinely scary."

True.

We don't agree all that often, though Skeppy once accused us of being in cahoots: you the devout conservative, me the born lib, but on this one issue we are of like mind.

Professors of either extreme are scary, and scariest are those who profess denial of racism while mouthing subtle comment tinged with just that assumption.

This is why many blacks say they prefer the overt discrimination of the Old South over the mealy hypocrisy of the North.

Perhaps, if anything, the commentary and the questions regarding it show the sensitive nature that all discussions of race have become. Even if one is trying to mention a persons ethnicity without being dispariging one can be questioned as to his motives.

Can one even mention anothers race if it is different than their own without somebody questioning his motives in this day and age?

A sad outcome of the current atmosphere in human relations today is that there is a large number of people of all races and both sexes looking for any excuse to claim victimhood. "I couldn't get a job because I am white and they gave the job to a black man for a quota" or "the only reason I was pulled over for speeding is beacuse I was driving while black". Then there is " if i was a man you wouldn't talk to me like that" or "You give all the easy jobs to the women". It alsways cuts both ways and it appears at least to this poster that its become much like a bad comedy.

The broadcaster was probably trying his hardest to sound fair and describe each ethnical difference so as to not highlight one over the other. Perhaps the best thing to do is to never mention race or gender when mentioning anothers exploits even if those exploits are amoung the first for any ethnicity or either sex.

For instance today or yesterday the shuttle blasted off to meet with the space station. There should never be a mention that this is the first time that both the station and the shuttle were commanded by females at the same time. Its a first and yes perhaps its a milestone but why mention it at all. Just move beyond mention of sex and race when describing accomplishments and a real step towards ending racism and sexism will have been taken.

In Chicago, I had a co-worker who was a big black guy. Some person was delivering a package, and asked to find Mr. Soandso.

"Oh yeah. Big black guy, two cubes down. Can't miss him."

Her jaw dropped. ("you-you can't say that!", I interpreted her expression).

He, of course, thought it was hilarious. Being, after all, a big black guy.

Nice to see you here on botf more often lately.

"The casual racism of American speakers would have portrayed Raikonnen more as an individual than a "blond, blue-eyed Norseman" while associating specific qualities with the racial group being stereotyped."

The speaker was British, and portrayal of Raikkonnen incidental to his Norse physiology. Still, something of the old empire mentality extant there, I suspect.

Wog (Western Oriented Gentleman), referencing any but true Brit within Empire.

"The broadcaster was probably trying his hardest to sound fair and describe each ethnical difference so as to not highlight one over the other. Perhaps the best thing to do is to never mention race or gender when mentioning anothers exploits even if those exploits are amoung the first for any ethnicity or either sex."

Yes. Probably.

But everything British resonates of incipient, generations-long racism so deeply embedded as to be entrenched, and mealy-mouthed North American platitude echoes the same incipience.

It's so deeply ingrained as to be irreconcilable, methinks.

Good question. Can it be racist without the intent of being racist? Of course: a) it's a two-way street; b) I just don't think the stupidity (or "heat of the moment") defense cuts it.

"Newly minted, newly western-named English speakers in call-centres are useful as tits on a bull, and coolies with the technical acumen of the water buffalos which drag their primitive plows through terraced rice paddies build mounds of stinking shit useless even for compost."

But how far do you go with that? Can, say, a severely retarded person be a racist? Of course not. (Can a parrot?)

So, you thought the announcer was being racist toward the Finn and the Spaniard?

I don't get the "pretend to be a girl" reference. Maybe you have the wrong riccaric there.