LeeToRainesToRoach said:Not sure about that. It takes the line that American culture is the ultimate arbiter of decency.
Years ago I was watching one of those all-night American news shows. A flavour-of-the-month British band had landed in the US and was being interviewed by the news team. One of the male US interviewers made an off-the-cuff remark about his female colleague's "fanny" (i.e. "backside" in the US). The band was shocked and said "You can't say that on TV!". The American said "Well I just did" and brushed it off without a second thought.
Why is it hard for some to accept that a lot of people here don't detect racism in the cartoon, except when told they should (and then only at a stretch)?
Haven't heard anyone tell the Yanks they need to stop using "rooting" in place of "barracking".
Article just makes me think a little further about the subject. These paragraphs in particular.
That we struggle to separate a conversation about the history of racism from the breakdown of a losing tennis player is proof of the delinquency of ideas in Australian discourse. It might have been possible to sympathise with Mark Knight’s depiction of Williams as a bad loser if, at some point, his publication only tried to acknowledge history. Perhaps the intention of his cartoon was not to deny history, but the intention of defending it was.
Nobody should be free to deny the testimony of the past and expect to also be free from ridicule. It would be a denial of history to say that it was incredible for a publication to defend that cartoon, so instead I should say that it was embarrassing. It was embarrassing to realise that we are still being represented in this fashion; embarrassing that we should be perceived in this light by other countries – even one with Donald Trump as its president – and it is embarrassing that a disregard for centuries of slavery should be fed to us as a defence of free speech.