Just like the whole Ross/Brand/Sachs nonsense, this controversy over Carol Thatcher’s golliwog “joke” should probably have been a bit of a non-story… “BBC broadcaster makes inappropriate remark, receives slap on wrist, apologises, gets on with life.”
But of course, these things have a tendency to spiral out of control. It’s like a car crash. Actually, no… it’s not like a car crash, because I’d probably be too squeamish to look at a car crash with such ghoulish delight.
As with Ross & Brand, the usual suspects have been painting their hellish pictures of an Orwell-esque Britain run by indignantly squealing politically correct lesbians and social workers. But you know what? I only hear indignant squealing from one side, along with a whole rash of straw men being hastily constructed for Richard Littlejohn’s lunchtime amusement.
Tell you what, let’s look at a few aspects of this issue, with the help of the Daily Mail’s Comment page…
Well, okay, let’s see… Ross said “fuck” and other potentially offensive remarks on air. He then made public and private apologies and was suspended for 12 weeks without pay. Russell Brand resigned from the BBC, as did the controller of Radio 2. On the other hand, Carol Thatcher made a racist comment (which could potentially go beyond “offensive” and into “illegal”), made no apology and still works for the BBC, although has been removed from one programme.
In private? No, it was in the workplace, in front of a collection of colleagues and guests, some of whom were journalists. Workplaces have rigorous procedures for this sort of thing, so the “informant” was simply behaving correctly.
Elsewhere online, I’ve seen people suggesting that one of the other people present could simply have had a quiet word with Thatcher, rather than “snitching”, but is this how we want conflict to be settled in our workplaces? A potential flashpoint in a corridor? Imagine the Mail’s headline if things had become heated… “CRAZED LEFTY BRUMMIE PRESENTER CHILES YELLS AT DEFENCELESS LADY!!!”
And speaking of our not being able to judge the “context and tone”, let’s move to the Telegraph…
Really? Elsewhere in the article, Charles Moore tries to describe Thatcher as a simple, uncomplicated sort of lass, but she’d have to be educationally subnormal not to be aware of the potential risk in describing a black tennis player as resembling a golliwog.
Of course, this relates to an argument regularly used by conservative types. “It’s just a cute toy, children love it, children aren’t judgemental, there might be racist origins but those were less enlightened days”… etc.
For a start, no one’s blaming children. They’re given toys by adults, and the golliwog (or Golliwogg) was designed by an adult. Florence Kate Upton’s 1895 character is a screamingly obvious caricature of a black minstrel, complete with staring eyes, thick lips and unkempt hair. He’s “a horrid sight, the blackest gnome” but eventually (to our great surprise) turns out to be friendly. Of course it’s bloody racist imagery!
I just can’t believe that we even need to discuss whether it’s appropriate to compare a black man to a golliwog. It’s a discussion that shouldn’t need to happen, just as this is a hysterical news story that shouldn’t need to happen. Hurrah for Jay Hunt, controller of BBC1, for her reaction on the Today Programme this morning.
