DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
5 February 2009
09:4014755No need to be disappointed Roger, I was actually being facetious(which doesn't necessarily convey well in the written word). Ross and Brand's behaviour was unacceptable, but then so is that of the other mentioned on this thread, purely on the basis that it has caused offence. For this reason we need to attempt to address what is acceptable and what is not by dialectic debate, not to called short by people suggesting things are boring. This is how we define ourselves as a society.
The ambiguity of the Daily Mail mentality is a problem: "if it wasn't offensive then, why now?" and "this is PC gone mad!" By adopting this attitude of suggesting that what is offensive cannot change, we could say that the Daily Mail are still supportive of the British Union of Fascists, or Adolf Hitler. If this was the case then, why not now? Things change (not necessarily for better or worse the latter being a Daily Mail focus) and once a childs toy, or a word that had no offence intended, can evolve or take on a different meaning or signifier!
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
5 February 2009
10:1614756Just to chime in with another piece of obscure how-times-have-changed type trivia, remember children's favourite Muffin the Mule in the late forties? (Not that I was there, I hasten to add). One of Muffin's lesser known puppet companions was a friendly minstrel known as Wally the Gog. Quite unthinkable now.
Here's the only image I could find, apologies that it's small:
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
5 February 2009
15:4214779Thanks Phil
We must have become a lot less tolerant in Society since those days.
On the BBC's breakfast show this morning, the controller of BBC 1 said that the Golliwog doll is offensive, so coming from that angle, Carol Thatcher would have had no chance.
She also went on to say that it's all in the apology ! hello ?? Jonathon Ross came back on the radio and TV because he apologised and was contrite !!!
The weak apology from Ross came only because he was going to lose so many millions if he didn't and he most certainly has NOT been contrite.
Why is it that the Golliwog (doll) is offensive to black people ? perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's only over-sensitive white people who find it offensive.
Why aren't all the "white" dolls offensive to white people ? I need some help here, some intelligent explanation to help me understand the true nature of it's offence.
Roger
5 February 2009
16:1214783The country's in economic and social meltdown, yet the measly meedja PC mob (daren't say 'niggardly PC mob', of course, in case some lexically-challenged thicko pounces on me for alleged racism) and assorted index-linked NuLab socio-hysterics are fretting and proselytising about the poor old loveable gollywog.
Blimey...and I used to love this place called Blighty. Now where's my passport? I'm outta here!
Andy
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
5 February 2009
17:5414787I agree Andrew its a load of over-sensitive drivle. My wife has a china gollywog I suppose she should chuck it in the bin as it could upset visitors.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
5 February 2009
18:3414792no need for that dave, i could allways find a good home for it.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
5 February 2009
18:5414794But this is my point about Brand and Ross (even though I was trying to provoke a response) I didn't find it offensive, but think the fact it causes offence makes it unacceptable. I personally don't find gollywogs or the word 'paki' offensive, but then they are not intended to offend me! In fact there is very little I do (except white dolls!) But the people do find these things upsetting and just because I don't, who am I to say "it's madness, irrational or stupid" At no point in this vast thread have I said Carol Thatcher or the Prince are racist, just that they weren't very responsible in their actions, careless!
I don't believe in Catholicism, but I don't go around saying Catholics are wrong, stupid or over sensitive, I'm just not a Catholic. Maybe I don't understand what tolerance is!?
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
5 February 2009
20:0014799Interesting post, Andrew.
The poster who pointed out that you dare not say anything like that publicly was absolutely right. For all we know Adrain Chiles might tell racist jokes down the pub, but it is good for his career to be "offended".
Contemporary Britain is ruled by a spirit no different in essence to that of Nazi Germany.
Then, people were sent to Auschwitz by colleagues who reported unguarded private remarks to the authorities. Colleagues who sought self advancement in bowing to the ideological hurricane blowing at the time.
Now people are sent to a social and professional Auschwitz by colleagues who report unguarded private remarks to the authorities. Colleagues who seek self advancement in bowing to the ideologoical hurricane blowing at the time. Poppadums, golliwogs..fast track to instant self-destruction.
It is so like "1984" as to be untrue. We are psychologically all ruled by the diktat of faux post-imperialist guilt imposed by a tiny metropolitan elite. It is not genuine on their part but totally insincere and Machiavellian.
They couldn't care less about black people's feelings -they are just trying to climb the greasy pole. My contempt for them is cosmic.
5 February 2009
20:2814804If people try to understand, or to accomodate, I think they should be commended. That you don't understand is nothing to be proud of. It's not about saying a word, or about reporting a colleague, or about not being tolerant. I freely admit to being intolerant of racists, bigots and nazis. They are not the kind of people I respect and wish to emulate. However, I respect them as human beings and love them as a Christian. It's about understanding how the words or phrases became hurtful or painful for some people - not you, as a white man, not me as a white irish woman, not him as a gay man, not her as a jew...............but there are some words that will always be damaging to some people. To defend them as ok is reprehensible, to boast about not understanding that is weird. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that some words or phrases were used with the intention of damage or hurt, and even if we don't remember that time, if we don't find them hurtful, or if we don't understand why some are hurt by them, that does not excuse us perpetuating them.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
5 February 2009
20:4814809no offence to posters here but we are nearing 150 posts on the subject of a comment made that some feel offensive, others do not.
with all the job losses in the country, companies folding, serious social issue with neglected children and old people that cannot afford to heat their homes properly in this unpleasant weather, this word is deemed so important.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
5 February 2009
21:1714814I think you will find it is the context Howard. How quickly would people take offence, and quite rightly, if those losing their jobs get called 'scroungers' as soon as they sign on for basic benefits, or if those children you refered to were called 'brats' and the elderly refered to as 'crones'. Words can hurt and, if they are allowed to be acceptable, can be dangerous. They demean those they are used against and diminish those using them.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
5 February 2009
21:3314815we will have to agree to differ chris.
losing a job, brutality to children and neglect of our elderly and vulnerable are serious issues.
insults are simply words.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
5 February 2009
22:3514819The BBC was right to ask CT to apologise and right to sack her form that particular show when she refused.
They were right to suspend Brand and Jonathan Ross (JR) pending an investigation, they were right to accept Brands resignation, however they were wrong not to sack JR.
The Daily Mail frankly panders to the hyper-sensitivities of little england and as such is less a paper than a middle brow tattle rag.
As for why "golliwogs" are offensive it is because they are based on a parody of the travelling black minstrel that was common in the latter part of the 19th & 20th centuries, including the bulging eyes, the oversized lips, the big hair (for those of you old enough to recall this is the exact image used in the Black & White Minstrel Show)
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
5 February 2009
22:4914820ross,i used to watch that particular programe on a regular bases didnt find it ofensive nor did the coulerd guys sitting next to me,as a matter of fact they found it rathr amusing.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
6 February 2009
07:5714825What exactly should Carol Thatcher apologise for Ross ? for saying someone's hair-style looked like a gollwog's - if it did look like a golliwig's, how else would you describe it ?
All the people who like the golliwog, don't like it because it is a racist nasty representation of black people, they like it because it's cute and if it made of wool or similar, it's cuddly too.
I couldn't believe that that the Palace had to take their golliwogs off the shelf at Sandringham - and apologise: for goodness sake it's a doll, pure and simple, not some wicked representation of times past. People are finding what isn't there.
Roger
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
6 February 2009
09:0114827The odd thing about this debate, and it rumbles on.. even featured on Question Time last night, is that both sets of the arguments are right - to an extent.
For us older geezers the term golliwog wasnt or perhaps isnt offensive because we grew up with the term. Every family had a golliwog toy so it was commonplace. The early TV adverts rang out with the jingle
"look for the golly, the golly on the jar!"
it was standard fare.
Peak viewing on the BBC on saturday night was The Black and White Minstrel Show...where white guys dressed up as Golliwogs, this was peak viewing, and sang out
"Mammy how I love ye..my dear old mammy etc etc"
So its in our culture to think its okay.
But the tectonic plates of society changed...leaving us old geezers up the river without a paddle. New immigration, new races, joined society and society changed. Things that we all took for granted offended the new people so a new social order was called for. The young embraced the new social condition easily enough, but us older ones didnt and still dont, and we dont know what all the fuss is about.
But we cant be dinosaurs. if the new social order calls for these old words like golliwog, n*gger, etc to be eased out then so be it. Its no longer acceptable. Accept the change and go with the flow. Whatever happened to football commentator Ron Atkinson!!?..vanished forever. So these new changes in whats acceptable have a very powerful lobby. Breach the new conditions and your out...fast.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
6 February 2009
10:1614832a sad reflection of todays nanny state.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
6 February 2009
12:1914833It is not a question of me not understanding. It is a question of hysterical reactions to something trivial that has been blown out of all proportion.
The point is that the remarks were not made on air. It hardly makes you a "Little Englander" just to disagree with the sacking. This is a favourite tactic of left-liberals - they try to shame you into silence by the mention of the words "Daily Mail".
I have had to endure racist jibes all my life about my German roots yet no one gives a damn whether I am offended and even seem to relish baiting me over it.
You have to grow a thick skin sometimes. A society where everyone is so walking on eggshells and living in fear of someone else's hypersensitivity is an intolerable society (even an intolerant one in some respects) and I cannot believe people on here are defending the BBC.
Also it's OK to be racist about Germans, ginger people, the Welsh etc. How can that be right? Why should certain groups that have turned themselves into cottage industries of hair-trigger grievance get to hog all the limelight?
We need to undergo a cultural shift in the UK and stop being so cringingly self-immolating. Grow up a bit about these issues.
Recognise the BBC's attitude for what it is - a twisted species of post-colonial self-flagellation crossed with a form of narcissistic one-upmanship.
And reject it.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
6 February 2009
14:5114835andrew,strong words there.and oh i agree with you.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
6 February 2009
16:3514838Thanks Brian
