Carol Thatcher, reality TV star and daughter of the former PM, has been in the news this week! In the Green Room at the BBC, she apparently referred to a French tennis player as a ‘golliwog’.
This was in the presence of presenters and the production crew. It is claimed that she failed to apologise and she has been consequently sacked as a reporter on BBC 1’s The One Show.
The story has been hitting headlines and created a lot of comments. Like many such stories, it has generated more heat than light.
Carol Thatcher insists that her comment was only meant as a joke. Now, I do not consider myself as one of the Politically Correct brigade. PC has become an industry in itself and has lawyers licking their lips.
But words have power and can be used in a constructive or destructive way. The ‘golliwog’ character used to appear on Robertson’s jam jars. But they removed it some years ago because it caused offence to many people. The term ‘golliwog’ has historical significance – it is a derogatory term used to describe black and other ethnic minorities.
Carol Thatcher is 55 and maybe she has sentimental and innocent memories of the jam character. But, as a black boy growing up in inner city Birmingham in the 1960s, every time I saw the character I would wince because it sent out a negative image of people with black skin. Mine may not have been a logical reaction, but it was a strong one that is shared by millions.
This is why Robertson’s withdrew the character. They recognised that the image and term was offensive. It is a pity that Carol Thatcher does not have the grace to recognise that.
I note that Carol Thatcher’s agent has been very active on her behalf this week. The cynic in me feels that Carol will emerge as a martyr and that the publicity will only boost her media career.
The tricky thing here is that we all know that there are words which can cause offence, and that to be civil, polite and courteous we should avoid using them.
The problem is, as you say, that the ‘PC element’ can’t actually agree on what these words are, as confirmed by a trip on public transport.
One can hear any number of f-words, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ and other profane language, and if one complains people look at you as though you had two heads.
So the problem arises when certain words perceived to cause offence can just be apologised for, and be forgiven, others are just ignored and some will result in career termination for the individual concerned, no matter what.
I am not trying to defend Ron Atkinson, but he made a mistake and ‘having done the crime, has done the time’. The idea that allowing Gordon Ramsay to swear so much on air, without a ‘knock-on’ impact elsewhere just doesn’t add up.
I don’t want to be sanctimonious or encourage a ‘culture of timidity’ in the arts – but we should all be wary of causing undue offence on a ‘level playing field’ – but if we occasionally get it wrong [and that is inevitable with a dynamic language] then we should be able to apologise without suffering life-long removal from polite society.
The BBC controller says Carol apologized for the offense caused, but the BBC controller does not accept her apology because Carol says she was joking and did not use the term with malice or racism in my mind. I don’t know why the BBC controller is demanding Carol admit to something she doesn’t think she did, surely an apology for the offense is enough?
Neither I, nor the BBC controller, knows what Carol was thinking when she used the term, it was obviously highly inappropriate, but for the BBC controller to allege that Carol must have been using the term with malice or racist feeling, and must therefore apologize for it, is ridiculous. She doesn’t know what Carol was thinking, you can catch her Radio 4 interview and she says Carol must apologize for being racist – I’ve never heard such a thing.
I don’t think the BBC, or specifically their controller “Jay Hunt”, come out of this well at all, either.
Carol used an inappropriate word, but do we really think she intended it in a malicious or racist way? If she has any racist views, I think we can be sure she wouldn’t air them in a BBC green room … being the daughter of a former PM and all.
I fear that you are right about the fact that the publicity will boost her career – I don’t really understand the ‘it was just a silly joke’ quote from Carol Thatcher, words with racist overtones are never funny!?!
It is a very offensive term and she should have apologized unequivocally.
As the daughter of the a politician I would have expected her to understand the importance of the impact of words. Didn’t Mrs T get into some of her controversies because she used the wrong word(s)?
Bob Jones I agree with you. As I said in my own blog on the subject, most of us are readily able to offer a spontaneous and heartfelt apology if we find we have given offence; what I find difficult is the concept of a further or a written apology. I can be filled with regret if I have hurt someone’s feelings, but the minute an apology is demanded I can feel myself involuntarily pissing this bladder of remorse straight down my leg. The apology, like a gift, becomes something else as soon as it meets a demand – a reciprocal move in a series of manipulations that leave neither party any better than they should be and the victor an opportunistic tyrant. I refuse to play out this farce, and it would seem that Ms Thatcher baulks at this too.
It has been said that an apology is the only thing that can change something that has happened in the past. On rare occasions this can be so, but it never has the value that it might have held had it been felt, uttered and accepted at the time.
A spontaneous apology is a gift and a real attempt to heal a wrong. To refuse to accept an apology is a miserable, churlish self-defeating thing to do. I fear the BBC may have done just this.
Growing up in Britain at a time when golliwogs were common toys, it never occurred to me to associate them with people with black skin. Honest, to me they just came out of a story book character and were on a jam label. Similarly when a noble peer used the term ‘nigger in the woodpile’ recently meaning ‘a thorny issue’ the origin never occurred to me until the horrified expressions on those around me made it obvious that I’d missed something. To me the phrase referred not to people at all. Of course I was wrong but heavens, how easily we are prepared to condemn. So Carol Thatcher should be more careful in her observations but I am not prepared to condemn as fast as many are. I agree we have a duty not to offend but we should also have the wisdom to recognise when a term has racist connotations and when it doesn’t. I’ve been here before, I expect I shall be stamped on by those who feel we must all catch up fast with what is PC. I’d prefer we used language honestly.
Not from me, Baroness Murphy. Though slightly younger than you and Carol Thatcher I, too, was bought up when certain words that may not be mentioned today were commonplace and certainly did not have an impact on me, one way or another.
Nigger brown was a colour in my paintbox, a common name for a chocolate labrador – innocent, quite nice connotations, if any but certainly not related to someone’s skin colour. However, times change and as I get older I’m sure I’ll fall foul of PC-ness, as you describe above.
The Insitute of Commonwealth Studies at Oxford was homed in a building originally called Black Hall, and was renamed Queen Elizabeth House in 1958, for the sake of sensitivity. I understand QEH was moved in 2005 and renamed Dept for International Development, since it was felt that Commonwealth Studies was also a touchy name. Those more learned than I are more touchy than I, or is there another reason?
Here is today’s Guardian article, by Darryl Pinckney:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/07/racism-race-golliwogs-offensive
Worth a read.
I agree with Baroness Murphy a bit of common sense will show that Carol Thatcher is not a racist. As ever the phrase has been blown out of all context. This was a word and phrase which she grew up with and was not meant as an offensive word or term. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves for making such a pathetic decision lacking any justification.
Thank you for all your comments. I agree with Baroness Murphy and with many of you that the BBC seem to have lost a sense of proportion recently.
They suspended Jonathan Ross for 3 months – a mere slap on the hand for what was, in my opinion, highly offensive and foul behaviour that was broadcast. Yet, Carol Thatcher was sacked for a comment that was off air, which she now apparently regrets.
The BBC’s response to Ross was an under-reaction and yet its dealings with Thatcher were over the top. Carol should have immediately apologised and the incident would now be forgotten.
However, let us not feel too sorry for the BBC and Ms. Thatcher. The BBC now have their One Show in daily headlines. Likewise, Carol’s media profile has rocketed. Brendan Behan once said, “there is no such thing as bad publicity”.
As I understand it, Carol apologised for any offence caused but refused to acknowledge any offence given. As I said in my blog, words have the power to hurt. They may be used mistakenly or innocently, but once hurt is caused, a sincere apology should be forthcoming.
Carol is very much in the public eye and is media savvy. She should have known that her actions could have negative consequences.
I would personally see it as a huge step back in race relations if she gave the impression to her audience that “golliwog” – with all its racial connotations – is an acceptable twenty-first century term.