This, I thought to myself, wouldn't end well. In the modernist mind it is supposed to be whites who are responsible for racism, and yet whites weren't directly involved in this incident. How would people cope with this rewriting of the script?
Well, the answer arrived in today's cricket columns. The white cricket columnists just couldn't cope mentally with the situation. The worst offender was Peter Roebuck who clearly decided to restore "normalcy" by portraying the white Australian players as arrogant oppressors and Indians as innocent, noble victims.
According to Roebuck the white Australian players are to be compared to "a pack of wild dogs"; their behaviour is described as "wretched and ill-mannered" and as arousing disgust and distress from around the world. They have embarrassed Australia and "dragged the game into the pits". There is no option, in Roebuck's view, but to get rid of them all: "Obviously, a new captain and side is required".
And what of the Indians? According to Roebuck, they are "accomplished and widely admired opponents". As for Harbhajan Singh, who called Andrew Symonds a monkey, he is a "head of a family and responsible for raising nine people", who as "an intemperate Sikh warrior" simply overreacted to Australians who want to "hunt him from the game".
So Roebuck has put things back into their modernist order. An incident in which the white players were not even directly involved has been recast so that whites once again occupy the powerful, guilty, oppressor role and the non-whites the innocent, noble, victim role. The stridency with which Roebuck presses this vision is intended perhaps to intimidate those who might question its validity.
Columnist Greg Baum was calmer than Roebuck, but is still obviously uncomfortable dealing with non-white racism. According to Baum "Harbhajan was foolish, but that is all". Baum then claims that:
Overwhelmingly, in all spheres, it is whites who have practised racism against non-whites. Yet in cracking down on racism, cricket makes as one of its first examples, a non-white player. This was always bound to sit poorly with Indians in India.
Baum believes so much that the colour of racism is white that he thinks that it should have been white players who were made examples of in cracking down on racism. Exactly how the white players were supposed to accept such a double standard isn't explained.
Conclusions? Modernism is a raw deal for self-respecting whites. We aren't treated neutrally, but are cast in an essentially negative role. The enforcers aren't so much outsiders, but our own liberal political class - the Peter Roebucks of the world.
Things will change if and when a different kind of political class emerges, one which is liberated from the assumptions of orthodox modernism.