So within the context of that, i think what he was saying was that he didn't feel there was any need for ethnic minority soldiers to get 'extra' support because hey, fat and ginger people get picked on too. thus, if anyone does comment on a soldiers skin colour, it's not racism, it's just the macho culture of the army.
frankly, i think that's incredibly naive but, in isolation, not necessarily an endorsement of racism in itself.
however, when a comment like that is followed on by talk of some black soldiers being soldiers being lazy and crying 'racism' when criticised, that for me is when you're stepping into dodgy territory.
because it suggests that the only time racism is a problem within the army, is when 'lazy' black soldiers use it as an excuse for being slack.
for me that's the crux of the matter. if he'd accepted and acknowledged that black soldiers can encounter racism, but that conversely, some soldiers can also use racism as an 'excuse', that would at least suggest a slightly more balanced view. but like i say, he doesn't. he lays the blame for any difficulties some black soldiers experience firmly at their own door.
what's also interesting is, when you reread what mercer said, it appears he was going out of his way not to appear racist. he made a point of saying he had the 'good fortune' to command a racially mixed regiment. he also states clearly that he say those black british born soldiers as being as 'english' as white british born ones.
which leaves us with the dilemma - is mercer actually a fusty old fucker who's trying to be even handed and getting it all wrong. or is he just a racist old bastard, who's said a couple of 'right on' things (ie: they're as english as us etc) to try to soften the blow of his prejudice?
based on my own prejudices, i'd say - he's a tory, it's probably the latter!Statistics: Posted by pol pot noodle — Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:20 pm
]]>