Offensive

[clapham_gull]

Not offensive. What's offensive is when a tv clip which has been seen by a couple of hundred people generates 10s of thousands of bandwagon jumping complaints. People need to f*** off and get a grip. With the Thatcher "incident", John Barnes was interviewed (I know, all the other black people must have been busy), and said that is wasn't offensive, he remembers the golliwogs with their smiley faces and afros, and they were nothing more than a brand, a selling point. He said that people need to see past the perceived "racism" and take things for what they are - a joke, or a comment. It's fairly easy to see when a comment is racist or sexist, but he couldn't understand why people got on their high horses about general banter.

As for the Gordon Brown shite, the man is Scottish, has one eye, and is an idiot. If the RNIB are so concerned about "fair play" for the blind, why was their spokesman not "visually impaired"? Load of old bollocks.

John Barnes doesn't up the feelings of all black people just I don't sum up the feelings of all white.

Listened to a phone in on the radio this morning where a middle aged West Indian called in to talk about the dolls. She talked about growing up in London and how the dolls at were used by the other kids to take the piss out of her skin colour and hair.

She's always felt uncomfortable about them since it brings memories back of her (and other black kids around here) being racially abused as a child in situations where direct reference to the doll was made.

She wasn't bitter (and definitely didn't come across as ultra PC) , but said she rang in because she wanted contradict the belief that the doll was something "innocent" that became corrupted later.

The kids (around here) very much considered it be a negative caricature of a black person and used it as such.

Now of course many children would have had one and never considered it as such. I've even spoken to someone who had one as a child, because they wanted a black friend, in fact their preference was for dark skinned toys !

However - I thought I'd post the above because it was an example of someone black being very offended by the toys and their name, rather than the accusation that this is simply white people getting offended on behalf of them

Anyway - the talk of the history of the toy is a bit of a diversion away from why the word was used.

If the reports are correct the tennis player was referred to as "that French Gollywog", "A Half Gollywog" (presumably meaning mixed race) and once challenged in it, the person saying it made reference to "being in trouble" like Prince Harry.

If those reports are true, there really isn't discussion to be had about the context in which the word was used. It was admitted.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Sure, the old-style jokes are dead and we now share a laugh by ridiculing celebrity - Posh Spice, Beckham, Goody, Jodie Marsh, Katona et al. Are they all awful? Er, no - just boring.

 

[Questions]

John Barnes doesn't up the feelings of all black people just I don't sum up the feelings of all white.

Listened to a phone in on the radio this morning where a middle aged West Indian called in to talk about the dolls. She talked about growing up in London and how the dolls at were used by the other kids to take the piss out of her skin colour and hair.

She's always felt uncomfortable about them since it brings memories back of her (and other black kids around here) being racially abused as a child in situations where direct reference to the doll was made.

She wasn't bitter (and definitely didn't come across as ultra PC) , but said she rang in because she wanted contradict the belief that the doll was something "innocent" that became corrupted later.



The kids (around here) very much considered it be a negative caricature of a black person and used it as such.

Now of course many children would have had one and never considered it as such. I've even spoken to someone who had one as a child, because they wanted a black friend, in fact their preference was for dark skinned toys !

However - I thought I'd post the above because it was an example of someone black being very offended by the toys and their name, rather than the accusation that this is simply white people getting offended on behalf of them

Anyway - the talk of the history of the toy is a bit of a diversion away from why the word was used.

If the reports are correct the tennis player was referred to as "that French Gollywog", "A Half Gollywog" (presumably meaning mixed race) and once challenged in it, the person saying it made reference to "being in trouble" like Prince Harry.

If those reports are true, there really isn't discussion to be had about the context in which the word was used. It was admitted.

The bit about the gollywog representing racists abuse is crap. The National front 'Hijacked' the union flag except that they didn`t. Only in the eyes of the politically correct pricks is that true. If racists use a word or image to relay their views then discredit them but do not seek to ban that word just because you feel it easier to than fighting the bigots.

 

[clapham_gull]

The bit about the gollywog representing racists abuse is crap.

Didn't say that at all, I just using an example of where it was. In actual fact I gave a very clear example of where it wasn't.

If you read the above again, you'll see that discussion of the toy is a bit of a diversion from the real issue here.

If racists use a word or image to relay their views then discredit them but do not seek to ban that word just because you feel it easier to than fighting the bigots.

I don't understand understand this mechanism where words "can be banned" or even sure it exists.

What I do understand thought, is you use them in a certain situations or context that are considered hateful (let's forget the term "politically correct") and refuse to apologise, you may have to take the consequences.

 

[NMH]

Interestingly, would they get banned for the Germans jokes, surely that would count as racism under many peoples 21st century rules.

The Germans are not a race.
Even the French, are not a race!

 

[vegster]

Since when has British comedy and 'the famed sense of humour' relied on mean-spirited snide and bad language?
I'm not a prude about language, I can eff and blind with the worst - but did real humour on telly need it? Young Ones - not much swearing. Ali G, same. Monty Python, nope, very little of note there. Fools and Horses, Rising Damp, Steptoe and Son, Black Adder, The Goon Show, Fawlty Towers...... etc.

Okay, so I ain't writing to complain about the recent addition of bollocks, shit and f*** to allowable televisual vocabulary - but the above named really do not need to use expletives or cheap shock in their schtick at all, so it's redundant, unnecessary, superfluous.

Offensive, is sending young people to actually die in an illegal invasion, letting torture and murder go on under the name of a flag, and subjugating innocents for religion or politics.

I agree wholeheartedly,humour used to be for everyone. Now there are niche, risque comedians who make a good trade out of benig on the edge as it were but frequently topple over. I grew up in a time when the great comedians could have you laughing your socks off with a look or an aside. Mind you, these comedians learned the hard way in clubs and small shows before being given a chance primetime.