“Carol Thatcher. Why can’t the BBC be consistent..?”
Iain Dale is asking why the BBC cannot be consistent in its treatment of staff who have offended due to racism.
He writes:
Chris Moyles is Radio 1′s star DJ. Two years ago he was involved, on air, in an incident which led to him being accused of racism. Halle Berry, no less, felt that he was indeed being racist. In December 2008 he faced another allegation, after he asserted that “Polish women make good prostitutes”. On neither occasion did the BBC fire him, let alone discipline him or even make him apologise. On both occasions the BBC said he was “poking fun”.Today, despite issuing a full apology, Carol Thatcher was fired by the BBC – not disciplined, but fired – from the One Show, after she likened a tennis player’s hair to that of a golliwog. It was a jokey remark made off air in the Green Room. And the tennis player concerned is allegedly the hideously white Andy Murray
.
So is saying golliwog racist?
“The film “Pulp Fiction” contains the “n” word 232 times. Is Quentin Tarentino a racist?”
John Travolta got shot as well. Is Quentin Tarentino a killer?
Drfitwood
Mary did NOT compare Protestants to Nazis, as you well know. Unionists extrapolated what she did say to arrive at that conclusion. Conscience bothering them perhaps?
When I lived in England I responded to a leaflet urging me to attend a ratepayers’ meeting about some local issue – roads, environmental etc.
When I chose to speak,after about a dozen others had done so, another gent harrumphed about “people like you, newcomer to the area, saying what we should do.”
I replied that I was a ratepayer, same as he was, to which the shouted response was: “Bah! You’re only posh Irish” !
To this day, I don’t know whether I was insulted or not. So tell me, what I should have felt, please.
What Mary McAleese actually said:
“The Nazis didn’t invent anti-Semitism,
they used anti-Semitism, they built on anti-Semitism but they didn’t invent it. It was, for generations, for centuries, an element of the lived lives of many people who, on the surface, lived very good lives, I mean many of them would have regarded themselves, for example, as very good Christians.
But they gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews, in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children, an
irrational outrageous hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children, an irrational outrageous hatred of
those who have different colour, and all of those thing, all of those hatreds in the wrong circumstance, on a street in Dublin, they can outcrop as I have seen and heard, of a little child from Somalia being pelted with rotten eggs. They can outcrop in a knife being taken in a fight and someone from Eastern Europe being knifed to death. It’s a toxin you see,
it’s a poison, and it can be in weak and diluted form, but even in that weak and diluted form, it’s still capable of surviving long enough for a
Nazi-type era to come along, and to force it into concentrated form, and in concentrated form you get Auschwitz, you get Birkenau, you get Darfur, you get Rwanda. That’s what you get when you don’t stop the toxin.”
Eddie,
No jury in the land would have convicted you for punching him straight on the nose. “Posh” indeed!
I don’t regard myself as being in the slighest posh at all, at all. But I was speaking SLOWLY so that he could understand me…or is that an offensive remark?
eddie
they’ll never understand us, now that probably is racist. next time i hear the word ‘paddy’ used on tv, regardless of the context, even if it’s to introduce Paddy Kielty, i’m going to throw a wobbly, claim heartfelt distress and demand retractions, apologies and , as an oirish man, loads of free drink for my trouble, no harm in a bit of stereotyping either. if the pc brigade survive it will eventually be impossible to talk at all, at all, at all.
Aah! Eddie,
Speaking ‘SLOWLY’ – that, as I have found to my cost, was your first mistake. Perhaps you even fell into the old trap of also speaking CLEARLY and maybe even speaking GRAMMATICALLY as well. Yes?
Serves you bloody right then. The locals were confused. You didn’t live up to their expectations of what an Irishman was in their experience and as a result may have thought you false and maybe even a little bit patronising. I have often been in a similar position and felt what I first saw as the sting of anti-Irish racism.
But I was wrong – they simply had had no experience of Irishmen except of those with strong southern accents who worked in the bulding trades with whom they had no animus whatsoever. The chip was on my shoulder not on theirs and when I began to shrug it off I found warm acceptance and respect. Anyone jumping newly into any already well founded community anywhere might expect a similar suspiciously unwelcome beginning as you (and I) did.
To brand such reaction as racist (which, I hasten to add, you have not) is far too simplistic and risks forgoing the opportunity of buliding lasting and meaningful links within new host communities.
The rules of human interaction are simple: if we belong in the receiving host community then our duty is to be welcoming to the incomer and to be respectful of his racial and cultural integrity. If we are an incomer to a community our duty is to respect and accomodate ourselves to the mores and traditions of that community without compromising our own integrity.
I realise that such implies that the old, “When in Rome do as the Romans do” adage then musts also be applied to “When in Ballymena….”, but then, what can a fella do? I asks you?
Only today a contributer to Talkback, a Rev used the term ‘spastic child’ without comment, double standards?
Only today a contributer to Talkback, a Rev used the term ‘spastic child’ without comment, double standards?
Tricky one. In the US it is a perfectly valid medical term. I think it also took on negative connotations here rather than being bad from the get-go.
Rory
Harry Flashman is perfectly right – context IS all. If Thatcher, as her protectors claim, used the remark as a comparison of the imagery of Andy Murray’s hairstyle to that of a popular image of her childhood then it would not have been racist and a simple “Whoops!” after realisation had dawned upon her of a possibly different context would have been sufficient apology
Maybe there is a generational gap here. “Golliwog” would be fairly shocking to my generation and some of the contractions would not be far off the n-word.
“goliwog is not racist. its a word hijacked by the pc brigade.”
Hey “Cut the PC” ….let’s develop your argument then. What about the label “terrorist” It seems “VERY PC” to label some folk “TERRORIST” today yet ignore the actions of other folk who behave like “TERRORISTS” And it brings “MORALITY” into question then, doesn’t it? You do know the meaning of the word “MORALITY” don’t ye “Cut the PC”? But “MORALITY” is very questionable too, isn’t it, well don’t ye think so “Cut the PC”? Now no wishy washy replies of “But whatabout etc…..”
“Interesting three birds of a feather you use.”
Indeed Driftwood, it is, and if you think about it, they are all from your “country” of “Northern Ireland”
It sez alot really, about the NI society or does it, Driftwood?
Kensei
I think we are from the same generation as is Rory, the point being if you describe a black person as a goliwog, yes that is shocking and most certainly racist. If you liken someones hair to that of a goliwog doll, that is not racist, just ignorant. Again it is the context in which the word is used that determines it´s meaning.
i’m going to throw a wobbly
You mean you’re going to ‘throw a paddy’.
Irish people are unreasonable and lose their tempers easily – undoubtedly because they drink too much.
Thank f**k I am outta that place.
“Irish people are unreasonable and lose their tempers easily – undoubtedly because they drink too much.”
Where’s that “paddy wagon” picador?
Carol Thatcher has a mane of hair on her like a black and tan horse i once rode at Rossnowlagh.
OK Up Tyrone, I see where you are coming from but you have completely and utterly missed my point, let me help you out.
I most certainly do NOT think the beautiful Serena and Venus Williams resemble monkeys in any shape or form (and you are only half right in your original comment, only Serena Williams is a very talented player, Anna couldn’t play her way out of a paper bag). However in the context (there’s that dreaded word again) of racial history it has been a common place of white racists to refer to black people as monkeys or apes, are you following me so far? Good, now no one has ever alluded to pretty but air headed Russian blondes as monkeys, therefore were I to do so it would be clear that I was not making any allusion to her race.
If I alluded to an ape in relation to a black person, talented or otherwise, beautiful or not, such an allusion would rightly be regarded as racist whatever my motivations may have been and quite unforgivable.
You see where I’m at?
If I referred to a Jamaican gentleman as a tight fisted, oily schemer, you’d rightly imagine that the man in question might well be so and that his race had nothing to do with my dislike of him. If I said it about a Jewish man you would however immediately suspect that maybe I had other more suspect motives.
Context Tyrone, context.
So always remember the context of words then folks, if anyone uses an un-PC word…it is the context that matters!
paki, raghead, sooty, golliwog, spic, slopehead, knacker, paddy, fenian, croppy, nigger, …does anyone know anymore to add to the list? Go on, elaborate, get it off your chests.
BTW…such words are beyond the vocabulary and minds of a lot of folk nowadays!
But then again, not all folk!
BTW, does anyone find the abbreviation W.A.S.P offensive?
Greagoir
You do not realise it but you have used “offensive” words in a context to highlight their offensiveness. Yet you argue that context is irrelevant.
I think everyone is in agreement that to use these words to describe people´s ethnicity is inappropriate and racist. Is it ever acceptable to use these words, well you have done, so what do you think.
WASP I do not find offensive, however no one is likely to use that expression to describe me.
Greg, so what you are saying, as the good Doc points out above, is that if anyone ever uses the word “golliwog”, in any circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the context, even if referring to a once popular child’s toy that has now rightly been discredited, then ipso facto by mere use of the word, they are racist?
No context whatsoever will permit the use of a word? Is that really your position?
Because if it is, it is plainly absurd.
Let me illustrate further my remarks above with a real life example in order to allay Tyrone’s suspicions that I am in fact a closet Nazi.
A few years back during a test cricket match between India and Australia tempers flared on the pitch and one of the Indian players referred to one of the Australian players as a “monkey”. Now the player against whom he hurled that epithet happened to be the only Australian player who was black (the fact that he also was wearing his white sunscreen in a ludicrous way clearly designed to irritate the opposing players is neither here nor there).
Context here is absolutely everything, if the Indian player had called a white player a “monkey” no one would have batted an eyelid but to use that term against the only black player was obviously offensive. The referee, a sound man, disciplined the Indian player in the harshest terms even though the Indian protested his innocence of any racial slur, why? Well the referee explained it simply, he himself was a white South African who had grown up under apartheid and he was not going to take any shit about “no intention to be racist, honest guv”, the ref knew, he said, the context of singling out a black man and calling him a monkey.
Context you see.
Fuck me, but this is one distasteful discussion.
is wanker racist? or is it just negative
Clarkson: “One eyed Scottish idiot” – I dunno, I reckon that’s just as bad…will he be sacked?
Matthew Norman seems to have got a good take on this.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/matthew-norman-oh-carol-ndash-you-just-dont-get-it-14171546.html
As wise old Harry sez – It is all about context.
There is however a problem with the BBC approach, very well put across by Jay Hunt this morning, just because you know when to tug the forelock to authority does not mean you should get away with anything.
It’s now fairly obvious CT wasn’t referring to Andy Murray (where did that come from?), so the people here defending the use of the ‘g’ word have no case. And even if she was referring to Murray or any other white person, and they STILL found it inoffensive – well then that’s just sad.
Like I said, racists and pensioners. How old are you Harry?
Kensei and Ms Wiz have both got it completely wrong – it is not a question of which generation one belongs to, it is a simple matter of the actualité, er, actually.
A golliwog to a person in these islands was the name of a stylised cartoon symbol of a black man used to promote Robertson’s jam. The sensibilities of the time did not allow for it to be considered offensive during its heyday – it required a campaign of understanding and exposure to more liberal sympathies to expose its offensive nature. Its appeal was among young children who were completely innocent of any offence it may have caused and it required enlightened adults to lead the campaign to expose its offensive nature.
But, there you have it, there once was a jam manufacturer who used such a symbol and this symbol was known as a Golliwog. To use the name to describe the symbol is not only perfectly reasonable it is absolutely bloody essential, else we wouldn’t even begin to understand the offence caused by Carol Thatcher’s remarks and perhaps more significantly her suicidal hauteur in refusing to give a fulsome apology, clearly still believing she had either committed no offence or if she had well, ” So what?”.
To refer to a golliwog symbol as a golliwog cannot be offensive in any context I can envisage. To refer to a human being as a golliwog, more particularly if that human being is black, most certainly is quite vilely offensive. Much as it would be offensive to refer to a woman as ” that fat old cow” while it would not be offensive to refer to an actual fat old cow as such.
I appreciate that you may have difficulty coming to grips with such simplicities but, give it time – you’re still young and only half-grown after all.
Rory
I am well aware of what it was. But while the symbol remains the same, the words meaning and virulence moves on. Some of the contractions, particularly “Wog” is not far of the n-word. In certain intellectual discussions with clear context it is fine. But just coming out with it at random directed at white or black dude? Er, no.
Second, it’s something that may cross your brain but for the love of God why are you making that comparison out loud at the BBC?
So a shop on the Queen’s royal estate has been selling ‘golliwog’ dolls too!
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/queens+gift+shop+removes+golliwogs/2923472
On a lighter note I would direct you all to the letters page of the most current edition of Private Eye where reader Max Petrokofsky, under the Lookalike caption, posts a most unflattering juxtaposition of photos of Andy Murray and An American Werewolf… which are uncannily similar. His accompanying letter reads:
Sir,
I hope your readers will join me in demanding an unreserved apology from the ATP for such insensitive scheduling of Andy Murray’s fourth-round tie. Playing late at night under a full moon obviously affected him adversely…
Supernaturally specieist shurely, don’t you think?
It made me laugh anyhoo.
“How old are you Harry?”
Mind yer own business.
Rory, never mind the long ramble about jam jars, personally I’ve always hated the word since I was called a wog way back in primary school. Haven’t heard it in a long time thankfully, but these days if you’re going to racially abuse someone you’d come up with something better than that.
Word to the wise, don’t ever use ‘golliwog’ as a comparison for anyone or anything. At the very least you’d just be showing yourself up as a complete ignoramus.
I still hear NI people refer to black people as ‘coloured’. I suppose the Irish have a bit of catching up to do when it comes to ethnic labels.
Once in Maldon Essex, I was party to the following comment: “That old bag at the end of the street is a bit Irish”. On enquiring was the lady blessed with Hibernian roots I was informed that “No, round here the word Irish means stupid”.
I wasnt really shocked.
Im soooo glad Carol thatcher got sacked
Harry Flashman: Mind yer own business.
It looks like you’ve been the victim of ageism to me. You should complain.
Ms Wiz: I still hear NI people refer to black people as ‘coloured’. I suppose the Irish have a bit of catching up to do when it comes to ethnic labels.
And yet ‘coloured’ used to be the most polite term available.
While recognising that on most occasions ethnic labels aren’t needed anyway; could you let us know the most up to date polite forms so that we won’t let ourselves down in front of the septics?
Miss Wizz
“It’s now fairly obvious CT wasn’t referring to Andy Murray (where did that come from?), so the people here defending the use of the ‘g’ word have no case.”
If you bothered to read what people posted then you would ascertain, that posters have been quick to differentiate between the two Carol Thatcher scenarios. If it was a reference to Andy Murray´s hair then so what, if it was a refernce to a black tennis player (which seems more likely)then it was a dusgusting, offensive and racist remark.
You will also learn from postrs that the main argument here is the use of certain words in context.
Miss Wizz
“And even if she was referring to Murray or any other white person, and they STILL found it inoffensive – well then that’s just sad.”
Why?
If she had of been referring to Murray, then the comment was ignorant but certainly not racist.
Ahhh…I see what the good Doctor is getting at.
If only Carol had said “no, no, no…the white tennis player…you know…looks like a big buck n****r!”. That would have been just fine by the Doc because clearly she wasn’t calling anyone an actual…well, you get it….she was just pointing out the resemblance!!!
It’s one thing to use the G word when nostalgically reminiscing over bygone racist preserve labels but it’s quite something else to label a fellow human being in that way, regardless of who he is.
The ‘context defence’ is truly is pathetic.
Did anyone see tonight’s hilarious Nick Higham ‘reconstruction’ of Golligate? We got to see a CGI Green room containing Professor Chiles, Rev Brand, and Ms White/Thatcher.
I believe the murder weapon was either the poison pen or the very large wine glass.
up tyrone (your latest non de plume)
“If only Carol had said “no, no, no…the white tennis player…you know… That would have been just fine by the Doc because clearly she wasn’t calling anyone an actual…well, you get it….she was just pointing out the resemblance!!!”
Can you please show me where I have said racial abuse is OK.
Also are you on here to slip in the odd offensive racial slogan,
“looks like a big buck n****r!”.
Or do you use that statement in the CONTEXT of what is being debated.
Either way you bring nothing to the thread.
Dr,
I take it that you have given up on trying to find a suitable context for describing someone as a G. The “context defence” of the indefencible is kaput. No?
“Can you please show me where I have said racial abuse is OK.”
Did you say that? I missed it but happy to take your word for it
Up Tyrone
You should be given the Slugger award for posting alot while saying absolutely nothing.
It´s been emotional, goodbye.
I believe that I must have suffered from a deprived childhood for, despite the fact of being – ahem – a certain age, I never owned a golly. Moreover, since I hated the bits of peel in Robinson’s marmalade, I never collected enough labels to earn a metal badge. Nevertheless I have thought and even voiced certain opinions regarding the striking resemblance of a member of the royal family to a horse and of a character in Coronation Street to a Chihuahua. I also think that Brian Cowen would have made an ideal model for the sculptors of gargoyles, if John Sergeant had not been available. In passing I would remark that these observations would have seemed insipid indeed to the pamphleteers of those unenlightened days two hundred years ago.
But enough of playing the (wo)man and to move to a serious and wider point. It never seems to occur to people like the BBC’s Jay Hunt how closely their mindset resembles that of people with whom they would be horrified to associated. I think for example of the persecutors of Sir Thomas More who suffered the stake rather than renounce his faith, of the Catholic zealots who murdered the unapologetic Huguenots on the basis that it was better that they lost their bodies rather than their souls. And I think of the Stalinist prosecutors whose victims not only had to confess their guilt but to recant and to acknowledge the error of their ways. This mindset not only requires a repulsive conformity of thought and word but also reveals a deep psychological malaise. Those who threaten the certainties of Ms Hunt et al must pay the price with grovelling apologies. Back to the future. 1984 to be precise.
“As Iain Dale notes, well paid rude middle class white men can get away with a lot in the BBC.
Clarkson, Moyles, Brand, Ross. It does rather spoil the stereotype of the BBC as being feminist”
“There is however a problem with the BBC approach, very well put across by Jay Hunt this morning, just because you know when to tug the forelock to authority does not mean you should get away with anything.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1137242/Jeremy-Clarkson-apologises-Prime-Minister-calling-eyed-Scottish-idiot.html
Prescient moi?