MClutterbuck
This is what Wilkie actually said;
“I think it’s wrong for those players to say there aren’t enough Indians or Africans playing the game without realising the impact and environmental damage a golf course would do in those countries,” said Wilkie. “You just have to go to those underdeveloped countries in terms of golf and look at the amount of money it would take to build a golf course and the destruction it would cause of forests. It’s utter rubbish to pretend that, by making golf part of the Olympic Games, you’re going to attract a poor guy in India to play. They just can’t afford it.”
His comments are clearly aimed at addressing the growth of the game argument and explaining why he thinks it’s a bogus. In doing so he’s referenced Indians and Africans as examples where, in his view, the growth of game argument is ill-conceived for both environmental reasons and economic reasons. If you want you can argue that he’s referring to the Indian and African races rather than citizens of the various African and Indian countries, but even so would that make him racist ? Here’s a random definition of racism that I’ve taken from the internet;
“Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”
Where’s the prejudice, or antagonism, or discrimination in Wilkies statement ? He’s not saying anything derogatory or hateful about Africans or Indians nor is he looking to discriminate against them. What he’s suggesting (and yes, this is my interpretation) is that the average guy in India and presumably Africa as well isn’t going to benefit from a multi-million pound golf course built in Brazil, on the basis that the average guy in those countries is too poor to play the sport. On that basis why should the Olympics be looking to promote the game there ? He’s not saying that Africans and Indians can’t or shouldn’t play golf (that’s a fact and not my interpretation).
If you think Wilkie is a racist for saying what he said then you can also call me one as well. I’d have no problem with that. I’d certainly object if others called me a racist but based on what you seem to think constitutes racism then I’d have absolutely no problem you calling me a racist.
With regards points 1, 2, 6 and 7 in your earlier post that you asked me to address, let me do so;
1. There is a huge high and middle-high income segment in Brazil that can benefit from a public course. In Rio and surrounding areas only there has to be more than 1 million people that can afford golf.
Assuming for the moment that your figure is based on actual demographics and hasn’t merely been plucked out the air, your point doesn’t address Wilkies argument about growing the game in Africa and India and such like.
2. Rio and Brasil in general need golf courses to attract tourism. The golf course if well managed could be a large boost to tourism in Brazil at a time they need it.
I suspect that greatly reducing the level of crime and wiping out the Zika virus will do a lot, lot more for tourism than development a golf course, or even half a dozen golf courses. Indeed you argument reminds me of Trumps argument for building Balmedie and that was that building his golf course would offset the decline in the oil industry in Aberdeen which is like suggesting the use a sticking plaster on a severed limb. However Wilkies comments weren’t aimed at tourism but at the growth of the game amongst native peoples.
6. Tell excellent African and Indian golfers their countrymen are not "entitled" to have good golf courses.
Presumably you have “entitled” in inverted commas for a reason ? Wilkie didn’t say it in the article and as I pointed out above he didn’t say or indeed imply that Africans and Indians can’t or shouldn’t play golf so not sure who your point is addressed to.
7. Why does Scotland have the right to build hundreds of golf courses in a small country and Brazil and India can´t have a few dozen courses in huge countries if built responsibly?
David Wilkie is an individual and expressing his own personal views. He has no right or authority that I know of to express an opinion on behalf of Scotland or dictate to any other country what it can and cannot do. He is only expressing an opinion. I think most folk recognise that, but I’m not sure you do. (As an aside I’d also point out that he was born and spent his early years in Sri Lanka, was later educated in Scotland, then lived in America for a while and now lives in England. I’d imagine he doesn’t speak for those other countries either)
Of course each country has its right to self-determination and that includes deciding whether it will allow the building of golf courses. However the point Wilkie was addressing was not what individual countries should allow in their own borders but whether a sporting organisation, namely the Olympic movement, should be promoting a particular sport on the grounds of growing that sport in certain countries. That’s what the discussion is about, not alleged racism.
Niall
edit to modify font size