Top Gear racist remark (again)

[Craig B]

You're right. I may not have put it in the best words, but I think just saying the n-word does not make someone a racist. I do not think I ever used the n-word before,but just saying it to prove a point (or make a joke) does not necessarily mean that someone is suddenly racist.

What point was Clarkson trying to prove? What joke was he trying to make? People do not suggest that Clarkson is "suddenly" racist anyway. His critics point to more than one incident, over a period of time.

 

[angrysoba]

I do agree that this is an anti-BBC witch hunt by the usual suspects who stand to gain financially if the BBC was to change.

Why is there a witch hunt against the BBC? Why are they so picked on so many people?

The BBC is funded by the licence fee (a mandatory fee paid by people in the UK to access TV and radio even if they never watch the BBC) to the tune of £3.5bn. Out of this they do have to fund regional programming, the World Service and help to subsidise the commercial stations but essentially the BBC has a humongous pot of money from which to make loads of high quality programmes and make them free (and ad free) at the point of access. They can also afford excellent news gathering, websites and things like iPlayer which was a game changer. The fee is £145.50 a year which is about as much as my father pays for 3 months access to satellite, IMO it's excellent value.

Media barons like Murdoch want the BBC dismantled because it's hard to compete against. The brand value and programming is excellent and because there are no ad breaks you get 60 minutes of content in every hour, not 45 as on commercial stations. Without the BBC they could charge ever higher prices for a mediocre service.

Right wing politicians want the BBC banned because they see it as a hotbed of leftist propaganda (although as a leftist I think that the BBC is centrist or even right wing). The BBC (unlike most of the rest of the UK media) is not right leaning and so tends to disagree with their policies. The BBC also tends not to bend to political will. The BBC is usually critical of the current government and so since 1979 will have been critical of right wing governments for 22 of the last 35 years. The BBC is also effectively a nationalised industry and orthodoxy would have it that it would be better off in the private sector.

The complaints about "slope" that have gone to Offcom were made by Somi Guha, not right-wing politicians, and the complaint about the n-word was raised by the Mirror, the only left-wing tabloid, whereas Clarkson has used his column in Murdoch-run The Sun to defend himself and he has been supported by right-wing politician and Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron.

Anyway, the "witch hunt" claims were made when it was discovered that a swathe of BBC presenters from the 1970s were guilty of or suspected of paedophilia. Of course, the Catholic Church also claimed to be subject to a "witch hunt" when similar revelations of its own actions came to light, but the cry of "witch hunt" was treated with the scorn it deserved.

 

[angrysoba]

Oh, and Harriet Harman, Labour MP is also an unlikely hatchet person for the Murdoch Empire.

 

[colander]

I see now what has happened. It's so obvious, when you think about it.

Rupert Murdoch must have hired ninjas to steal and leak this recent footage. To throw us off the scent, he cleverly hired thousands and thousands of English conservatives to defend Clarkson on the internet.

 

[Noztradamus]

What point was Clarkson trying to prove? What joke was he trying to make? ~~~~

A reflection on earlier happier times when Guy Gibson could name his dog without considering the Domestic Manners of the Americans. And now we do.

 

[The Don]

The complaints about "slope" that have gone to Offcom were made by Somi Guha, not right-wing politicians, and the complaint about the n-word was raised by the Mirror, the only left-wing tabloid, whereas Clarkson has used his column in Murdoch-run The Sun to defend himself and he has been supported by right-wing politician and Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron.

Anyway, the "witch hunt" claims were made when it was discovered that a swathe of BBC presenters from the 1970s were guilty of or suspected of paedophilia. Of course, the Catholic Church also claimed to be subject to a "witch hunt" when similar revelations of its own actions came to light, but the cry of "witch hunt" was treated with the scorn it deserved.

The question was about the general "downer" on the BBC rather than this specific incident.

Jeremy Clarkson has made himself a target by being a right wing boor which makes him a target for people like myself. I don't know whether his long-standing feud with former Mirror editor Piers Morgan has had an impact on why the Mirror has been quite so tenacious in this case.

 

[Craig B]

A reflection on earlier happier times when Guy Gibson could name his dog without considering the Domestic Manners of the Americans. And now we do.

The domestic manners of Black Americans? And now we do what?

 

[colander]

The domestic manners of Black Americans? And now we do what?

He's talking about an English movie from 1955 where an Air Force guy had a dog named the N-word who figured heavily in the plot. (It's probably worth noting that the word was considered innocuous in Britain for some time after it had fallen out of polite usage in the US.) The version of the movie shown on television in recent days was one that had been clumsily recut to remove most mentions of the dog's name. Apparently, this made the movie difficult to follow at times.

This seems to have made certain English people upset with "the Americans" who have stolen their word away by declaring it offensive.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It may be worth remembering that words do change their meanings from time to time and place to place- even very locally. This applies to "bad" words as well as "good" ones.
In Scotland, between world wars 1 and 2, a large Italian community established itself. They contributed many things to Scottish life and culture, but became especially known for running ice cream and fish-and-chip cafe restaurants.
Both the Italians themselves and the cafes became known as "Tallys". Those cafes which have survived frequently still are, though as the distinctiveness of the families has faded through intermarriage, the term has gradually declined for the Italians themselves.
There is a clear parallel with "Paki". The waves of Asian immigration that followed first the partition of India and then the expulsion of Asians from ex imperial colonies in Africa resulted in the creation of the Indian / Pakistani restaurant as a British high street staple. (It's an ill wind...) and the domination of the small corner shop by Asian families. Using family members to keep wages low, such shops all but drove non-Asians out of the business niche. The term "Paki's" or just "Paki" for such shops exactly echoes the use of "Tally". The irony is that many such shops were Indian owned. Brits never bothered to learn the difference.

I still hear people refer to the shops by the term "Paki", even in one case where the original Asian owner has sold out to a Pole.

I can't see anything racist about that usage.

That does not , of course, mean the word is not rude if used of a person, but even then it seems to me that the important question is one of intent.

Some will say Clarkson was being deliberately offensive. Some would say he was trying to be funny. Some feel he's just a prat. It need not, naturally, be only one of the above.

ETA-Regarding the "N word" story. As kids, we used the "eeny-meeny" rhyme to choose teams for games. There were two versions,. "catch the baby" and "catch the n_". One was current before I moved from Motherwell , aged 6 1/2 to Wishaw, all of three miles away, where the second version was used. I'm talking 1963. I no longer recall for sure which was which. It never occurred to me at the time that there was anything wrong with either. None of the words made sense. Only the rhythm mattered.

 

[Tolls]

He's talking about an English movie from 1955 where an Air Force guy had a dog named the N-word who figured heavily in the plot.

Well, it's not just a movie.
Guy was an RAF wing commander in 1943, with a dog called that.

 

[Klimax]

Thanks for the input, but I'm not sure what kind of "valid argument" you think it makes sense to deploy against a poster whose sole contribution to the debate is a story about how he courageously said the N-word a bunch of times in his house. Alone. In Holland.

It was obviously heavily sarcastic and parody. Mostly to show how crazy some positions are...

 

[bluesjnr]

This seems to have made certain English people upset with "the Americans" who have stolen their word away by declaring it offensive.

Let me get this right;

Chapter 1, is about the BBC's and specifically, Top Gears illegal employment strategy.

Chapter 2, is about the inside job/conspiracy that unearthed and distributed the clips and the people who hate working alongside Jezza.

Chapter 3, is where it becomes nothing about the country 4000 odd miles away from you and on another continent, where the "offence" actually occurred but it turns out it's all about "the Americans".

This is pure gold, pure gold.

 

[LondonJohn]

The complaints about "slope" that have gone to Offcom were made by Somi Guha, not right-wing politicians, and the complaint about the n-word was raised by the Mirror, the only left-wing tabloid, whereas Clarkson has used his column in Murdoch-run The Sun to defend himself and he has been supported by right-wing politician and Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron.

Anyway, the "witch hunt" claims were made when it was discovered that a swathe of BBC presenters from the 1970s were guilty of or suspected of paedophilia. Of course, the Catholic Church also claimed to be subject to a "witch hunt" when similar revelations of its own actions came to light, but the cry of "witch hunt" was treated with the scorn it deserved.

I see it as more nuanced than this. I think that there demonstrably is a good deal of anti-BBC sentiment among many (most?) other areas of the media - the basis of which has a fair amount of justification (the BBC clearly enjoys an anticompetitive advantage in the TV, radio, online and general-news-dissemination markets owing to matters of broadcasting licences/access and the compulsory public licence fee). There is therefore a clear agenda among many large competitors to the BBC - of whom Sky and the Mail are the most vociferous and hardline - to denigrate the BBC at any opportunity.

However........ I think that this factor is also often used as a smokescreen by the BBC, its staff/employees/contractors and its apologists: "Oh well, they would say that wouldn't they? They hate the BBC and want to see it destroyed at all costs." Sometimes this counterargument is fair and warranted Often it is not. In my opinion, in this Clarkson matter, it is not warranted: the criticism of Clarkson - and, by extension, the BBC itself - is justified and appropriate.

I will, once more, state my personal position on this issue. I think that there is now more than sufficient evidence for any reasonable person (or corporation, or regulator....) to conclude that Clarkson (and Top Gear as a programme) has an inappropriate and unacceptable attitude to racial, gender, sexuality and nationality issues. This is all about a pattern of behaviour, which is a) demonstrable, and b) admitted to - then laughed off, minimised or excused - by the show's presenters and producers.

In the latest two issues ("Slope-gate" and "Eeeny-Meeny-gate" ) it's now beyond question that Clarkson and the producer both knew exactly what they were doing: deliberately and willfully trying to insert casual racial slurs into the programme. In the "Slope-gate" incident, the insult - remarkably - made it to air in the broadcast edit, despite the producer and presenter knowing full well (as they have admitted) that it was deliberately intended to be a thinly-veiled racial insult. In the n-word incident, I think that the totality of the evidence tends to strongly suggest that the presenter (and probably also the producer(s)) had an original intent to include the word in the broadcast edit, but decided upon filming the segment that it was impossible to say the word in such a way that the racist slur was subliminally conveyed while retaining sufficient deniability of having used it (in other words, Clarkson couldn't manage to mumble the n-word ambiguously enough that they could have their little joke while being able to claim that he had never used the word - or anything even resembling the word).

This is why I think Clarkson, Top Gear and the BBC rightly deserve to be censured and held to account. Schoolboy "humour" is one thing - and it's a staple of the Top Gear philosophy. Evidence (and viewing figures) suggests that a surprisingly large portion of viewers within and outside the UK enjoy this sort of "humour", banter and "blokeishness", so it's an obvious furrow for the show to continue to plough. But when this schoolboy approach extends to a schoolyard treatment of racial, gender, sexuality or nationalism issues, then it crosses the line into becoming entirely unacceptable.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Daily Mirror have an axe to grind against Clarkson because he has had a long running feud with a certain ex-Editor.

 

[eirik]

..inappropriate and unacceptable attitude to racial, gender, sexuality and nationality issues.

Am i allowed to have a different opinion, or does that reveal my inner racist?
If so, I think you're the one with skewed attitudes.

This is why I think Clarkson, Top Gear and the BBC rightly deserve to be censured and held to account.

Are you aware that the segment never was sent? There is nothing to censur.

 

[colander]

Let me get this right;

Chapter 1, is about the BBC's and specifically, Top Gears illegal employment strategy.

Chapter 2, is about the inside job/conspiracy that unearthed and distributed the clips and the people who hate working alongside Jezza.

Chapter 3, is where it becomes nothing about the country 4000 odd miles away from you and on another continent, where the "offence" actually occurred but it turns out it's all about "the Americans".

This is pure gold, pure gold.

I agree with you that blaming Americans for taking away British people's rights to use the N-word on television without censure is very silly indeed. If you have a problem with this idea, I recommend you take it up with the poster whose idea it actually was.

 

[colander]

Am i allowed to have a different opinion, or does that reveal my inner racist?

You are allowed to have whatever opinions you like. By the same token, other people are allowed to view you and your opinions as stupid and/or racist. Hope that helps!

 

[Noztradamus]

The domestic manners of Black Americans? And now we do what?

Black Americans? How did you get that?

He's talking about an English movie from 1955 where an Air Force guy had a dog named the N-word who figured heavily in the plot. (It's probably worth noting that the word was considered innocuous in Britain for some time after it had fallen out of polite usage in the US.) The version of the movie shown on television in recent days was one that had been clumsily recut to remove most mentions of the dog's name. Apparently, this made the movie difficult to follow at times.

This seems to have made certain English people upset with "the Americans" who have stolen their word away by declaring it offensive.

Actually the reference was older than that.

Regarding the film. It may be edited for Murrican TV, but I saw it recently uncut. Again it's an American thing, USAian culture seems to have always had a whiff of prissiness.

And it's not that you have "stolen" the word by declaring it offensive. it's that the world of mass culture and iNet seems to mandate strict conformity to Americanian feels.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~the expulsion of Asians from ex imperial colonies in Africa resulted in the creation of the Indian / Pakistani restaurant as a British high street staple. (It's an ill wind...)

That would be the curry.

 

[Craig B]

Well, it's not just a movie.
Guy was an RAF wing commander in 1943, with a dog called that.

I know, and the dog's name should have been left in; and people who have genuine occasion to refer to the dog by name should do so, without being accused of racism--which is quite different from the Clarkson situation of course.

There has been a move to bowdlerise Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, to remove this offensive word, an initiative which I regard as ridiculous. The word was used in the speech of the time and place in which that novel is set, and Twain reported its use. There is no obligation on anyone to whom the usage is intolerably offensive to read the book, so there is no need to mutilate this text.