I came here to say the same thing and was quite worried about the storm I was stepping into. Just the other day- my partner and I had this discussion. Is calling it the kungflu offensive? To many- yes. Derogatory? Arguably yes. Inappropriate for officials? I’d say certainly yes. Could it be a COMPONENT or SIGN of racism? Yes. Could it have racist implications? Yes. Is it inherently racist...? Well... not really.
I don’t think that should be a widely used term- especially by official channels or in public discourse- for many reasons from sensitivity to just practical ones. But- we tend to call everything “racist” if it has to do with race or some related or conflated abstract- there’s racial bias, racial discrimination, economic b/d, ethnic b/d, etc etc. not everything that is ignorant or insensitive of race/culture/ethnicity/nationality/etc. is “racist.”
It’s splitting hairs- but sometimes those hairs are important. We have to understand a problem to deal with if appropriately. For example- certain studies using video games- light gun simulations- showed that regardless of race or gender- when told to shoot the “bad guys,” and in each scenario the “bad guys” were either “white” or “black” - participants regardless of race were more likely to shoot the black characters- even on accident when they were “good guys.” These tests were done separate- so it isn’t a case where the bad guys became the good guys and people got confused because they were shooting one on the last try.
That shows us there is some sort of cognitive or perceptive bias there. A person CAN be prone to shoot a black person out of racism- but- even a person who objectively isn’t racist is more likely to shoot a black person, according to these studies. So- in looking for a solution to a problem like recent police shootings- a solution only aimed at “racism” is unlikely to get the desired results, because a black officer, an officer with a black spouse, studies suggest they are still more likely to shoot a black person even though they aren’t racist. If we try and solve the wrong problem- we won’t get what we are after most of the time.
So in this case- “Kungflu” is not particularly racist on its own- but it can indicate racism or bias, and at the least could be an indicator that the speaker is detached and/or ignorant from the culture and welfare of Chinese or Asian citizens. That when they speak and act- they don’t intuitively or through effort think in a way that is serving that community or its people- or they flat out don’t respect the group as a whole even if they respect certain members of it.
I suppose if they find kung-flu offensive, we could always call it the "chinese-market-animal-torture virus" and that'll shape things right up.
.
Granted that's not as catchy, but the last thing we want is to inject humor into a grim situation after all. Better to just stick with the facts up front and avoid the whole mess.
.
Also I'm officially nominating Winnie the pooh as the virus' mascot for personal reasons.
.
Granted that's not as catchy, but the last thing we want is to inject humor into a grim situation after all. Better to just stick with the facts up front and avoid the whole mess.
.
Also I'm officially nominating Winnie the pooh as the virus' mascot for personal reasons.