The good thing
about this debate is that it got me reading more. And also, as did Carlos, reminiscing about the "olden days" and reflecting my families' histories in a larger context. (Like one of my cousins being married to a family many of whom are pieds-noirs, an association brought about by the mention of the Algerian war and the OAS. Or how things like how a brother of one of my direct ancestors ordering a whole city to be burned down during the 17th century might reflect on me. Things like that.)
Organised and overt racism is inexcusable as an ideology and an action. It ranges from a very human quality/tendency to be wary of anything unfamiliar, to a cynical and destructive use of such prejudices in politics, conflict and beyond. Yet very few (if none) are completely unaffected by it, and we all have to challenge and examine that tendency within. This is documented beautifully and intricately in a song by Youssou N'Dour and Neneh Cherry, the "Seven seconds". Manchild's Wikipedia quote offered notions by a couple of people, one of them notably described as a "former neo-nazi". This is important. While as an ideology or an action, racism is inexcusable, a person who at some point has adopted these but subsequently rescinded and acted accordingly, can and should be forgiven (the manner of forgiveness being of course contingent on the possibility of legal ramifications of certain racist actions). Getting rid of racism demands a meeting of minds of everyone involved and awarding a possibility for that to happen.
While Manchild in his post definitely gives the benefit of a doubt to a "former neo-nazi", I wonder under what circumstances could he extend the same courtesy towards Max Mosley? For example, a succesful and high profile architect and urban planner, Albert Speer, has scarcely commented on his father (who went by the same name, was also an architect and later on became the minister of armaments in Hitler's regime and featured highly in the Nuremberg trials), but I can't remember anyone calling his son a racist or a nazi - nor do I have any wish or want that he should be challenged so because of his family history.
I very much don't agree with many decisions Max has taken or made possible in his current capacity. I didn't remember his fondness for tobacco advertising. I dislike the engine freeze for its engineering and ecological ramifications. And so on, and so on. If a change in leadership is required to change these things, of course I'll support that, on those very grounds. But I still fail to see what this has got to do with racism. If he absolutely, definitely shared the dreams of his father, circa 1930s or so, surely an Anglo-German venture like McLaren-Mercedes would've been his pet project above all for the last years? If you want to blame Max of anything, he has been more consistently opportunistic than anything else, in apparently supporting the the Labour party for the last decade and a half! And I can only imagine that whatever belief he has held, being the secretary of the Oxford Union, those have been challenged time and again. Anyone debating at Oxford Union should expect nothing less.
Max's finest hour and other stories, by Joe Saward, grandprix.com (link) provides some perspective to these issues.
By this I do not wish to defend Max Mosley as anything else but an example of a person who has basic human rights just as much as anyone. It's his prerogative to fend for himself first and foremost insofar as he's able to do so, and as far as I can tell, he's very capable of doing so without the help of others. I do wish to challenge the notion that the ends justify the means. I do wish to challenge the notion that dragging all sorts of filth to the light of day, no matter how remotely relevant to F1, somehow has the potential to transform the sport or anything else for the better. Things could very well take a turn for the worse if we're not careful. F1 isn't a very nationalistic or ideological sport compared to most others. That's one of the reasons F1 attracts me.
Often, almost invariably really, when conflicts have gone on for a while and people have run out of excuses, history is used to perpetuate the conflict and in teaching the conflict for new generations. Pick and choose what part of history is relevant, and you can rationalise almost anything. We're limited beings and can't study and learn from everything. All the more important then, to realise that this goes for everybody and act accordingly. Ending things once and for all doesn't respect what we don't know or comprehend - and there's always more of that than things we do know and comprehend.
Absolutes don't complement the human condition very well.
If it's in Wikipedia it must be reliable.
So I will sit down and continue enjoying racig 