The BBC’s misguided response suggests that reacting to racism is worse than racism itself. All I saw was another woman of colour calling out racist remarks for what they were, and describing her own experiences. The clear message sent by this ruling is that whether or not something is racist is purely subjective.
To complain about Europeans gong to South Africa to dispossess the indigenes is to be right on, just and laudable. To complain about Bantus from West Africa doing the same is to be appallingly racist.
Racism is thus subjective, isn’t it?
Any approach to impartiality needs to clearly acknowledge that racism – particularly of the blatant “go home” variety – is a violent and illegitimate standpoint.
By whose standards then? By those you wish to impose on everyone presumably. At which point you can fuck off Honey.
Because it’s not called racism when someone says the descendants of the Voortrekkers “should go home” but it is when second generation immigrants here are told to do so? Subjectivity rather depends upon your point of view, doesn’t it?