Top Gear racist remark (again)

[Lisa Simpson]

Why? What's the evidence for that, rather than the more obvious, to me, anyway, suggestion that he was simply illustrating that there was nothing to choose between the two cars by saying that the only way to pick one of them was by using a children's rhyme?


You might have a point if he had said the word. The point is, he didn't say it. Furthermore, they didn't broadcast the take where it sounds a bit like he did (we're getting into pareidolia territory with that, I think).

Except he admitted he said it. His only excuse has been "I didn't hide it well enough."

 

[LondonJohn]

Why? What's the evidence for that, rather than the more obvious, to me, anyway, suggestion that he was simply illustrating that there was nothing to choose between the two cars by saying that the only way to pick one of them was by using a children's rhyme?

As I said before, a significant part of the evidence for this is the three different takes. Why were there three different takes? Why did Clarkson - by his own admission - consciously choose to substitute the word "teacher" into the third take (the one that ended up being broadcast)?

You might have a point if he had said the word. The point is, he didn't say it. Furthermore, they didn't broadcast the take where it sounds a bit like he did (we're getting into pareidolia territory with that, I think).

No - he DID say it. I find it very hard to understand why you believe he did not. Furthermore, I refer back to Clarkson's own admission that he consciously substituted the word "teacher" into the third take. Why would he have done this had he not been conscious of the fact that the word he used in the first two takes was unacceptable? Or are you contending that this was just a random substitution of one innocent word for another?


What I'm taking from your position is that a) you're rather a fan of Clarkson (and/or Top Gear), and that b) for that reason (or others) you've discarded your ability to think critically about this issue. Clarkson mumbled the n-word very audibly. It's my contention that the only reason they recorded Takes 2 and 3 is that they realised that they couldn't get away with Take 1. By Take 3 they realised that there was no alternative but to substitute in a different word altogether. And by doing so - and admitting explicitly to having done so - Clarkson has implicitly admitted to using the n-word in the first two takes.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, this "not broadcast" canard is yet another piece of dreadful thinking. Richard Keys and Andy Gray were not broadcast making their offensive remarks about women. Does that make it all OK? Jeez..................

 

[Agatha]

That doesn't wash one little bit with me.

Clarkson is a grown man. He's also a broadcast (and print*) journalist, and thus has additional responsibilities and obligations to use language carefully and appropriately.

It's my absolutely firm opinion that what Clarkson was doing in that film item was the following: he was attempting to slip in a "hilarious" piece of casual racism into the item by disguising it within the "by rote" mumbled section of a nursery rhyme. I am entirely convinced that he knew exactly what he was doing. Part of my certainty is based on the fact that there were alternate takes with a different word "mumbled". I think they watched the rushes and realised that the racial slur was just too recognisable in the first take. I think they did a second take in which Clarkson attempted to say the word again, but less recognisably. I think that this also failed, and that they resorted to a take 3, in which Clarkson resorted to using a different word ("teacher") altogether.


Incidentally, Agatha Christie wrote a murder mystery that was originally titled "Ten Little N-words". When I read it at school it had already been retitled "Ten Little Indians", and since then it's been completely retitled as "And Then There Were None". It would be equally reprehensible for a broadcast journalist to refer to the book by its original title (unless it were in the specific context of a discussion related to the title and the racial slurs). Saying something like "Oh it was the title of the book I remember my Grandmother reading to me" just wouldn't wash. Just as anyone trying to excuse Clarkson by saying "Oh he was just reflexively repeating the words he had learned as a child in Doncaster" is utterly missing the point and/or being disingenuous.

I'm not excusing him, I'm saying he didn't use the word in its entirety, the audio sounds like "neener" or "ninner". And I think the Mirror are jumping on a tabloid bandwagon, but that's what they do, just as Clarkson is doing what he does. Behind closed doors the Mirror journalist and Clarkson are probably buying each other pints and celebrating the success of this publicity.


I didn't suggest he reflexively used the word, I suggested he reflexively used the pattern of the rhyme he learned while avoiding using the actual word. I agree that Clarkson was probably trying to slip in some casual racism by stealth; that's part of his on-screen persona. He's an equal opportunity hater as long as it suits his act, hence the Wales thing. But he can plausibly deny using the word as he deliberately mumbled it by saying "neener" or "ninner" on the non-broadcast footage. For broadcast, he changed the word.

* I say "print journalist", but have you read some of the stuff he puts out under his name......?

No, I tend to avoid his work as I find him unpleasant, misogynous and laddish.

I have a 1970s copy of the Agatha Christie book to which you refer complete with offensive cover art of a golly toy being stabbed. I also have a copy of the kindle edition of And Then There Were None, which despite the changed title and slightly changed poem and description of the china figures in the narrative, still contains at least two instances of the n-word as "there's a n-word in the woodpile". So I am aware of that book, thank you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Except he admitted he said it. His only excuse has been "I didn't hide it well enough."

Exactly. I have to say I'm finding it fascinating - and not a little dispiriting - to see the contortions and poor thinking on display by some of those seeking to defend/excuse Clarkson in these matters. I expected better.

 

[zooterkin]

Except he admitted he said it. His only excuse has been "I didn't hide it well enough."

Well, that's one way of reading what he said; I think you may be missing some subtleties of British English.

Even if what he said was insufficiently indistinct so that it could be argued that he actually pronounced the word, does that make him racist?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm so shocked.

ETA: He did everything in his power, EXCEPT not saying it in the first place.

That's not what he actually says in what you quoted. What he says is that he intentionally mumbled, but in one of the takes the mumble sounded too much like the avoided word.

I'm not defending the puerile humour of muttering instead of using words you shouldn't say. I'm just pointing out that was the intention.

Plus of course the clip was never broadcast. Does anyone know how it came to light?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, that's one way of reading what he said; I think you may be missing some subtleties of British English.

Even if what he said was insufficiently indistinct so that it could be argued that he actually pronounced the word, does that make him racist?

There are different categories of "racist".

One (the one that Clarkson has set up as a straw man to deny) is the worst sort - the sort who take positive actions of hatred against people of certain ethnicities, based predominantly on those people's ethincity itself.

Another sort of racist (the one that Clarkson actually IS, as far as I'm concerned) is less bad but still totally unacceptable in 2014, especially from a network broadcast journalist. It's the sort that casually throws around racist remarks under the thin cover of "humour" and "all just for a laugh".

The fact that Clarkson - and, apparently, you - a) cannot make this distinction, and/or b) cannot see how the second description also categorises a form of racism is more than mildly astonishing to me. And I'm a white middle-class male christian heterosexual

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Well, that's one way of reading what he said; I think you may be missing some subtleties of British English.

Even if what he said was insufficiently indistinct so that it could be argued that he actually pronounced the word, does that make him racist?

Instead of saying to the producers "let's not use the word in the original rhyme, let's use the teacher or tiger version", he tried to get away with saying the word without saying the word. He acknowledged that. That's no misunderstanding of British English.

In my estimation, yeah that makes him racist. He had a choice. He chose poorly and is now trying to make things right. Maybe if he didn't have a history of jokey racism, I might believe him. But jokey racism is still racism.

 

[angrysoba]

No, they recognise the word by knowing the rhyme, and realising that the only reason for mumbling and not saying a word at that point is if the word being skipped was the word in question.

No, most people here recognize the word by its sound and context, and have explicitly agreed that the mumbled word was not a substitute. You have invented a new reason for them that they have not used themselves.

And yes, there is a difference between Farage and Clarkson.

This is what I suspected some people would say but it is interesting to have it confirmed.

Well, that's one way of reading what he said; I think you may be missing some subtleties of British English.

Even if what he said was insufficiently indistinct so that it could be argued that he actually pronounced the word, does that make him racist?

I think not necessarily. But it makes him look foolish by failing to fess up and instead pretend he didn't use the word when he did.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's not what he actually says in what you quoted. What he says is that he intentionally mumbled, but in one of the takes the mumble sounded too much like the avoided word.

I'm not defending the puerile humour of muttering instead of using words you shouldn't say. I'm just pointing out that was the intention.

Plus of course the clip was never broadcast. Does anyone know how it came to light?

My word - that's the part that I actually find most offensive of all. It's the part where Clarkson "explains" the "storm-in-a-teacup" by saying the following (my bolding for emphasis):


"Now when I viewed this footage several weeks later I realised that in one of the mumbled versions if you listen very carefully with the sound turned right up it did appear that I'd actually used the word I was trying to obscure. I was mortified by this, horrified. It is a word I loathe and I did everything in my power to make sure that that version did not appear in the programme that was transmitted.

"I have here the note that was sent at the time to the production office and it says: 'I didn't use the N-word here but I've just listened through my headphones and it sounds like I did. Is there another take that we could use?'

"Please be assured I did everything in my power to not use that word, as I'm sitting here begging your forgiveness for the fact my efforts obviously weren't quite good enough, thank you."


So what Clarkson is claiming here is that although he didn't use the n-word in that first take, it somehow sounds like he did use it! How could that be, Jeremy?! And if that's true, then what word were you actually saying, that came out sounding like the n-word? And why did you consciously choose to say a totally different word ("teacher") at that point in the mumbled rhyme in the later take that was broadcast?


Regarding the "not broadcast" part, this is irrelevant to the issue - just as it was irrelevant that the casual misogyny banter uttered by Richard Keys and Andy Gray was never actually broadcast on Sky Sports, yet it earned them (rightfully) the sack. Just as Carol Thatcher using the term "Golliwog" in the Green Room at a BBC show (far from the cameras) was justly sufficient to earn her the sack.

And finally, regarding how it came to light: I very strongly suspect that someone within the Top Gear production team who dislikes Clarkson's casual racism (or who possibly might have some other unrelated axe to grind) preserved a personal copy of the tape for use at some opportune time in the future. That time, they decided, was now. Whether or not such behaviour is reprehensible in itself is somewhat peripheral to the central issue of Clarkson's use of language.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yet you know what the word was

As Tolls pointed out, I know what the word was because I know what the rhyme was. As do you.

...definitely the n-word; nobody disputes that!

Correct. The word he was trying to avoid was definitely the n-word, and nobody disputes that.

But I like the novel defence:

"His words were taken out of put in context!"

Well, now you're taking me out of context. I'd be grateful if you would not imply that I claimed that context made it OK to say that word, because I most certainly never said any such thing. I said context made it possible for us to know what the muttered word was, because we could not hear it clearly enough to make it out otherwise.

 

[angrysoba]

As Tolls pointed out, I know what the word was because I know what the rhyme was. As do you.



Correct. The word he was trying to avoid was definitely the n-word, and nobody disputes that.



Well, now you're taking me out of context. I'd be grateful if you would not imply that I claimed that context made it OK to say that word, because I most certainly never said any such thing. I said context made it possible for us to know what the muttered word was, because we could not hear it clearly enough to make it out otherwise.

No, even Clarkson admits that it was recognizable by its sound as well as its context. If you want to argue that it was purely from context, then how was it that Clarkson thought mumbling it alone was sufficient to mask the word? In fact, he argues that out of TWO mumbled versions one of them did sound like the n-word. If we are going purely on context then it would stand to reason that BOTH mumbled versions would bring up the n-word.

Anyway, you're right that I should not have put quotation marks around something that YOU did not say, so I am sorry about that. But I didn't argue that you said it was okay in the context, I just think it is ironic that whereas most defences of racist words are that it was taken out of context I stand by the argument that the taken-in-context defence is hilarious one indeed.

 

[LondonJohn]

The strange thing is, Clarkson could actually have offered up a half-decent defence in this specific "n-word" row by making a very simple claim (regardless of whether or not this was the truth): he could have plausibly claimed that in Take 1 he had been reciting the rhyme by rote, and immediately realised (as he was saying it) that he had unconsciously - and totally erroneously - muttered the n-word. At that point (he could have claimed), he immediately realised that he would have to re-film the shot, making sure that he used appropriate language.

But he didn't say that in his weasel "explanation". I wonder why not?

Actually, I have a suspicion that there might possibly be reasons why he couldn't have made that claim: I wonder if there are plenty of people who were present on the set and/or in the edit who would give an account (under serious questioning) that Clarkson knew full well what he was doing both on the set and in the edit, and that he and the production team were playing a game to see how much they could get away with (deciding, in this particular case, that Takes 1 and 2 were just too identifiable to be able to be used).

 

[LondonJohn]

No, even Clarkson admits that it was recognizable by its sound as well as its context. If you want to argue that it was purely from context, then how was it that Clarkson thought mumbling it alone was sufficient to mask the word? In fact, he argues that out of TWO mumbled versions one of them did sound like the n-word. If we are going purely on context then it would stand to reason that BOTH mumbled versions would bring up the n-word.

Anyway, you're right that I should not have put quotation marks around something that YOU did not say, so I am sorry about that. But I didn't argue that you said it was okay in the context, I just think it is ironic that whereas most defences of racist words are that it was taken out of context I stand by the argument that the taken-in-context defence is hilarious one indeed.

In a totally unrelated observation, I find that I can usually divine quite a bit about any particular UK person's deeper ego (as opposed to the superficial character they would sometimes like to display) by whether or not they have a passion for Top Gear that goes beyond a sheer interest in cars.

When people start saying things like "Huh huh I really love it when they race a Ferrari 340 against a hang glider" or "Huh huh I loved that bit where they dropped a caravan from a crane 200ft high", or "Huh huh I love that Clarkson is so irreverent, and I love the witty banter between him, the Hamster and Captain Slow", that usually gives me a fair amount of information to work with....

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I know I should get out of this thread and walk away, but one other point about risky humour, and I hope I can express it the way I mean it:

When someone makes a joke which depends on the audience understanding that the shock of the bad taste of the joke is the joke, then they need to be very sure they have a relationship with their audience where that is understood. When someone with views far to the political left or right does it, they need to know that people who already hate their views are not going to charitably assume they meant the joke they way they actually meant it.

When Kenny Everett went onstage at a Young Conservatives rally in the '80s and opened with a gleeful "Let's bomb Russia!" to wild laughter and cheering, there were plenty on the left who acted as if he was entirely serious.

Clarkson has probably just marched into the same trap. There are plenty of people who already despise his views on so many things that they need no persuading to accept that he may also be a racist. If the viewer is inclined to assume he's not a racist, then the bad taste gag works as intended and becomes a comment on the shock of remembering the rhyme we (the older ones anyway) learned to say as children, when we had no idea what it meant. If you don't give him the benefit of the doubt, then the gag becomes a vile piece of sneaky racism, sneaked into a TV show because he's a vile, sneaky racist who wants the sneakily rub our noses in his vile racism.

I'm sure he intended the former, but he'll now reap the whirlwind of the latter.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Hmph. If all of you, including Clarkson, had just used 'One potato, Two Potato' for choosing things, like normal children did, none of this would have happened.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hmph. If all of you, including Clarkson, had just used 'One potato, Two Potato' for choosing things, like normal children did, none of this would have happened.

If it had been, say, Stewart Lee instead of Jeremy Clarkson, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

Actually if it had been Stewart Lee, he would have stopped after the mumble, backed up and said it at full volume then made a ten minute routine out of rubbing our faces in racist-things-we-used-to-take-for-granted.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmph. If all of you, including Clarkson, had just used 'One potato, Two Potato' for choosing things, like normal children did, none of this would have happened.

Pfft, that's potatist.

Personally, in both childhood and adulthood I have found my preferred method to be: "I'll have both, thanks."

 

[colander]

Wow, all you people defending this guy must really, really love shows about cars.