I guess that explains some things. It'd be nice if you had the grace to recognize your perspective is perhaps not the most useful, informed or relevant one
Perhaps you should consider that yours isn't, either, when understanding all the factors.
The meanings and associations of words are determined by the society they are used in. The world in the 1960s was a much different place from today, and many of the associations of the n-word in America were not present in the UK at that time. We didn't have a significant minority of descendants of slaves, we didn't have segregation (in fact, wartime experiences of black soldiers in Britain during and after the war were one of the factors that fed into the civil rights movement, as the local populations often would not stand for the attempts by the US military to impose segregation in pubs, for example). For the majority of children using the "eeny meeny" counting rhyme, the n-word might just as well have been a nonsense word (I didn't attend a school with a non-white pupil in until the 70s). From today's perspective, it is easy to be aghast at it being used in so casual a way, but the word wasn't being used as a put-down on a daily basis for a significant portion of the population, as it was at the time in the US. I'm not denying that there was racism, and there were some people from racial minorities who would have suffered from it, but that one word in the rhyme was not exactly indoctrinating children to regard non-whites as inferior (however, if you really want to blow your mind, go looking on youtube for
The Black and White Minstrel Show which was broadcast on the BBC until 1978).
Let's be clear; I'm not saying we should be able to use the word freely when we like. I'm not claiming it's "political correctness gone mad" that I can't recite a rhyme from my childhood without thinking very hard about the context and who I'm talking to. From a purely skeptical point of view, I'd like to say we can use any word we like, because they are just words, but that is to ignore the very real associations that they have.
And it's those associations that have changed, from the UK perspective, because of changes to the make up of society here and because of increased globalisation and social awareness, that mean that word is not acceptable now, even in a nonsense rhyme. Whatever you (and I) may feel
now, the rhyme was acceptable
then, in the UK, when I and Clarkson were growing up. And it would have been
that version, whatever alternatives with substitute words have arisen in the meantime.
Now, to the actual situation; I find it highly plausible that Clarkson came to the conclusion that the two cars being tested were indistinguishable, and that you might as well choose at random. It is quite common in such a situation, in the UK, for someone start counting "Eeny, meeny, miney, mo..." He could have stopped there, of course, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the other hand, it's a bit of a weak ending for a punch line on a TV programme, as opposed to in a private conversation, so he chose to go on.
He could have used one of the substitute versions; that, too, might have avoided controversy, but it might not have occurred to him, and he might not have been immediately aware of what the alternative versions were. So, he went with the version he knew, but did not articulate the words. Personally, I think he was partly making fun of the embarrassment felt by people of our age in exactly that situation. Others seem to think he set out from the start to find some excuse to use the word; I find that implausible (I have spoken to a couple of people who have worked with Clarkson, and they have seen no indications of him being some sort of monster behind the scenes. In fact, he's apparently very nice, which is a bit annoying for those of us who want to dislike him based on his espousal of certain views).
It was then decided that, in context, the mumbling sounded sufficiently like the actual word that it could still give offence, so they changed to use a completely different word for the broadcast version.
I do get it that some people think he said the word. I disagree, but I can understand why they might think that. I don't think you'd recognise the word, as he said it, in isolation and without knowing what it was supposed to be; but in context, knowing what the word should be, it's very hard not to hear it (which is what pareidolia is all about, too. Having been told what to listen for, I can't
not hear Freddie Mercury singing "It's fun to smoke marijuana" when listening to "Another One Bites the Dust" backwards. I also know I didn't hear it the first time, before being told what to hear.) Given the expectation, since everyone (over a certain age, at least) knows the rhyme, I'd say it was near impossible to make any two-syllable sound at the right point and not have at least some people swearing they heard him say the word. That's not a criticism, it's an observation on the way our brains work.
to consider when discussing whether it makes sense for anybody else to have a problem with using such words while filming a nationally broadcast television show aired in a country which has many black people in it.
That'll be why he didn't actually say the word at any point, and why he used a completely different word in the version of the programme that was actually broadcast.
