By Derek Draper
This morning, after his shameful appearance on the Today programme, and equally shameful blogpost, LabourList removed Iain Dale's Diary from our blogroll. We said:
"10.00 am Ashcroft sock puppet Iain Dale has defended Carol Thatcher and the use of the word "Golliwog". See, even the nice seeming ones are nasty underneath. On the Today programme he said Adrian Chiles must hear much worse every week. No, Iain, he doesn't. Because he doesn't make a habit of hanging out with racist Tories. Until Dale thinks again we are suspending his listing on our blogroll. Come on Iain, do the decent thing and admit you got this wrong. Listen to Dale here."
Iain has now responded, and below is his e-mail, along with our reply. We think the exchange speaks for itself, and we hope he reconsiders his position:
From: Iain Dale
To: Derek Draper
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 10:45:44
Subject: RE: fyi
Sorry, but that is pathetic. I have never said that golliwog is an acceptable term. Throwing around accusations of racism like this ought to be beneath you
From: Derek Draper
To: Iain Dale
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 10:55:24
I replied:
Subject: RE: fyi
Iain,
I have not accused you of racism.
I have accused you of getting this wrong.
You know you have deep down, so get out and make that clear.
You said:
"The logic of the BBC's argument is that the very mention of the word 'golliwog' is considered racist. Utterly preposterous."
In what way does that not mean golliwog is an acceptable term?
Iain, i have no reason whatsoever to think you are a racist but you are in danger of defending people and terms that clearly are.
Yhe web and blogging are a fast moving business, when we make a mistake we should accept that.
Take this chance to show you really are the nice guy you seem.
With all personal best wishes,
Derek
UPDATE:
Iain Dale has posted this explanation on his post. I am afraid I had to tell him it was specious:
"Apparently it is this sentence which Draper has latched onto, which I wrote last night...
The logic of the BBC's argument is that the very mention of the word 'golliwog' is considered racist. Utterly preposterous.
The key words here are "the very mention of the word". So context doesn't matter. It should be a non word, should it? I studied linguistics at university and one thing I did learn is that you cannot "uninvent" words. You can try to ban them, but it never works. You can make them socially unacceptable and that is what has happened with this word. It's a word I don't use either. But the point of my article was that Carol is not racist, something my co-interviewee accepted on Today, and we are told it was a jocular remark. So I completely stand by that sentence. It doesn't mean that I regard the word is acceptable, it just means that I don't agree that every time it is mentioned it implies the person saying it is racist. Otherwise there were an awful lot of racists on the 5 Live Phone In this morning."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
How do you know? are you in the green room every day?
Quote "Because he doesn't make a habit of hanging out with racist Tories."
So it's just some Tories and no other political parties that have people that (may) make racist comments?
How do you know? are you in the green room every day?
Quote "Because he doesn't make a habit of hanging out with racist Tories."
So it's just some tories and no other political parties that have people that (may) make racist comments?
She could have used the same word in a different context "i hate him he's a f***ing G***y", totally different. Just because someone has percieved a phrase to be racist does not mean it was actually intended as such
At the BBC, wrong behaviour is permitted, so long as it is the right kind of wrong behaviour. The BBC should get off their high horses - we all do stupid things from time to time. A 'don't do that again' would have sufficed.
The sly sneaky way in which Thatcher was snitched reveals more about the BBC than Thatcher herself.
There is nothing about this context that makes it ok.
I was wondering why people believe that acting unprofessionally at work is ok. Is that an intelligible enough question for you?
I would be fired for such a thing, and I am glad that rule applies to Carol Thatcher too.
This issue is not about political correctness it’s about challenging those who encourage persecution, discrimination, harassment and intimidation all in the name of'
"Its OK they did not mean to say it that way"
Well this issue is very current and important and if you can’t understand why then perhaps you also share raciest views or tendencies.
Frankly I'm fed up to the back teeth the way some in society are so flippant when it comes to outdated views which damages peoples lives.
If you’re bored, well get over it as many in society are not.
What a damned silly argument is going on here: it just shows how much the New Labourites are that to deflect attention to the really dire situation we are in in Britain that Mr Draper manufactures a ridiculous argument like this. As he is so busy as a "writer" psycotherapist cheerleader etc I am really surprised he wants to even start a puerile debate like this.
Anyway, you could say the same thing about everything Iain writes...
Does anyone in the political blogosphere actually write things for them not to be read?
This post is off topic.
Again, context is everything.
A script-writers' meeting where they are deciding whether to use the f-word or c-word in a new TV drama?
A police officer reading out - verbatim - the statement taken by a suspect or witness?
Again, it's all context.
Other than that, if Barack Obama can stand up and say, "I can no more reject (his pastor buddy) than I can reject my grandma who made racist comments," then Carol should be forgiven - provided she admits she's totally wrong and an idiot. I'm sure she will. I'm sure she won't want to be a PC martyr.... will she?
Do you mean that because Carol was "at work", does it alter your consideration of whether it is morally unacceptable or not? Or are you asking whether it's ok for you to use that term at your place of work?
However, the Telegraph are now reporting that she was referring to the black French player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.
Clearly, referring to a black person as a golliwog is totally and utterly unacceptable and is real racism. Golliwog is about as strong a term as you can imagine - stereotyping black people as stupid, humorous and ridiculous. It's not like calling a gay person a poof, it's like calling a gay person a mincing queer pansy. I think Iain Dale would understand that as hugely derogatory and worthy of disciplinary action in anyone who said it.
Iain - you really can't defend someone referring to a black person as a golliwog, can you?
I'll quote you back: "not acceptable in any public (or private) arena".
Yet you found it acceptable to use it several sentences earlier.
Granted, you did not use it referencing someone. You used it nonetheless, and then decried the use of it in any venue.
You are now pleading that you used it in a "safe" context. Why use it even then? There wasn't any need.
The term has fallen out of common useage. Since you find it offensive, leave it that way.
An obvious example of the g-word being used in a non-racist way would be: "The golliwog was, for many years, the emblemn printed on jars of Robinson's jam"
Numerous other examples can be easily imagined.
The same goes for the n-word.
Context is everything.
However, as you have used it, I assume you find it contextually offensive rather than offensive in itself. I know you have 'quoted' it, but you have still used it.
You could have easily not used the word given the sentence structure in which you have used it and the fact that it would be contextually apparent which word we were referring to. Instead, you have used it.
Given that, surely you agree with Iain's point that the very mention of the word is not racist in itself?
Britain is on the verge of collapse with a dangerously unstable lunatic as prime minister and you lot are discussing some PC crap that the real world got bored with twenty years ago.
You are so far out of touch you can no longer be taken seriously
'Thatcher' along with many other Tories are inherently racist. No matter how much old slap head 'Cameron' paints the Tories as been all fluffy and nice. Some of us can see beyond this and know that the dirty deep cancer of the real Tory party still exists. And if they get elected, then people will be in for a huge shock as the real Tories come out to play.
Remember it wasn't so long ago that a Tory MP was sent to Coventry for saying that it was fine to call black soldiers in the army Niggers.
Considering how Labour have used the term 'racist' to stop debate specifically about immigration by accusing those seeking some scrutiny as 'racists'.
Yet, as we can see here on this very website, Dan McCurry can happily accuse the residents around Heathrow Airport as being potential BNP supporters (and therefore are currently latent racists) if the Airport inexplicably was to close very tenuously on the grounds of not expanding it further.
Still, no harm done, these people are not going to be voting for Labour now or any time soon are they?
As to the word Golliwog or Gollywog, the insinuation has always come from the political left, it was the GLC that banned Robertson's Jams and Marmalade after all.
As for Iain's point, if you look at the history of these dolls and their depicion in children's stories, they were portrayed as kindly and heroic. Only later once a racist association had been made, they were sinister as the League of Gentlemen's Papa Lazarou ably demonstrates.
So I would agree with Iain, it is a political mind-set that makes this association, like many words it is the cultural 'now' that defines the word, not its history.
However, Derek to then make the accusation of Iain which is certainly inferred is a prop to a rather pathetic strawman of Derek's fabrication.
Moyles can say a lot worse in front of a celebrated black female actress and get away with it.
How so? That is a very valid point and you would add some credibility to your ad hominem attack Derek if you tried to square your accusation with that?
So we are left questioning your intention, the most cynical and sadly, typical modus operandi would be to drum up trade.
The other intention is to stick a very nasty insinuation on Iain.
Which let's face it, would be New Labour all over.
As for the furore here, the mock outrage is amusingly synthetic. Only people on the political right can be racists.
How preposterous.
For example, he's previously supported the Anglosphere Institute. The Anglosphere is apparently led by two node countries (UK and USA) and includes five outliers (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa) and the 'educated English-speaking populations of the Caribbean, Oceania, Africa and India' (but these are very third class).
This scheme isn't racist, say Anglospherists, even though an uneducated Briton will always be in the first division while a well educated Indian will always be third rate.
What he did do (on both radio & online) is question the BBC’s reaction and introduce the concept of context. Nobody on this entire thread or anywhere else on Labourlist has engaged with those issues for some reason – I can only assume it’s because they don’t feel sure of their position.
Instead we have repeated references to Iain ‘defending’ the use of the word, suggesting it’s ‘acceptable’ etc. all without a single source or quote of substance to back them up – it’s laughable really.
I'm sure the interests of LabourList are exactly what you have in mind, Liam.
That's a tact acknowledgement of my point Tom - this ain't about language or race but traffic.
If it's not OK to use the term 'racism', then how do YOU describe a racist?
I think it's more that Labour folks, DD included, feel the need to challenge the internet hegemony of people like ID. HE doesn't help himself when he claims that the term 'golliwog' isn't a racist on really, does he?
The key is in the last syllable.
When Ian Dale was trying to dumb down the remark By Carol Thatcher on the BBC it was not just a defence of the person. Due to the way he defended her and how he laid out his own view, he has implied that as long as the word was not meant then it’s perfectly OK.
Racism thrives on such flippant acceptance and you can be sure that those who are raciest or lean towards such views would feel quite happy having their standpoint defended. If Ian Dale wants to show he does not support such language then perhaps he should not be so quick to offer support to it.
Whenever raciest views or terms are used they should be exposed not protected. Carol Thatcher may well have not intended offence, but that is irrelevant as she still knowingly used the term.
If we are to ever become an equal society it is up to those in the public eye to think about what they say and how they say it. Hiding behind excuses will not prevent the harm they cause.
Carol Thatcher and Ian Dale in their lack of consideration have played into the hands of those that seek to pull Britain apart.
Let's get things in proportion: Ms Thatcher didn't use this admittedly risible term on air - she said it in the green room and somebody perhaps a bit too "PC" reported her for it, which is in itself is childish - it harks back to the school playground "please Miss, Carole said....". If they were that offended why didn't they challenge her about it at the time, privately?. That's what I would have done - and I guess most of the people on here. However, Thatcher gets sacked for a remark made off-air and in private. If the BBC are now so sensitive, why did they not sack Jonathan Ross for insulting a 78 year old man on radio, and about matters to which he wasn't responsible for anyway?. I suspect the reason was because they would have had to pay Ross off from a very expensive contract, I assume that the cheap TV show The One Show pays in TV terms minimum wage.
As a "psychotherapist" I am surprised Mr Draper doesn't have more pressing matters to cope with.
Seriously Alex? Can you source that...? And if we're going to fall back on that tortured interpretation of the "the very mentionof the word" phrase then I really, really do despair for this site.
“His post that 'the very mention of the word 'golliwog' is considered racist [is] utterly preposterous' shows a lack of understanding on how offensive racial slurs can be.”
That’s simply wrong Alex and it’s hard to conclude other than people are being deliberately obtuse here. There is absolutely nothing in that phrase that speaks to Iain’s (or anyone else’s) understanding of how offensive the word is – it’s dealing with an entirely different point, namely that context is important.
In fact, by rejecting that reference to context and then using the word you’re then effectively deeming yourself racist which is clearly absurd.
Derek – can we get some sort of decent editorial control here and a decent grasp of language? You’ve made an allegation, Iain’s refuted it and you’ve went silent – Labourlist can surely do better than this…?
Are we to believe that Labour minded people don't actually care about wildcat strikes being organised by Unite and GMB shop stewards in a bid to secure jobs for local workers?
If you wish to ape the success ConservativeHome you're going to have to learn to stop pulling your punches.
It also make Derek look a little silly because Iain’s explained himself in pretty straightforward terms and Derek’s just ignored it. Hard to conclude there’s any substance to this beyond a crude traffic exercise….
Is this really the best sort of thing that Labourlist has to offer? You're attempting to stir up a storm in a teacup over what seems to be very little especially when you read Dale's reply. It's a bit pathetic really. Where's the conversation on the BJ4BW gone? Where is the discussion on the policy changes needed by the party to try and win the next election? Where's the presentation of the need for the surveillance
society? There is increasingly nothing of substance on this site. And what little there is is not even of prurient interest. Your site is starting to die a slow death from over censorship, poor quality content and party tribalism. Moreover your technology stinks. The word wrap on comments fails. The pages stretch for vast expanses of blank when making a comment and the design is very stale. Consider these comments
from a concerned customer.
The statement you refer to is quite clearly about whether or not the use of the word is always racist – it doesn’t contain the word ‘acceptable’ so your accusation doesn’t hold up. If this explanation is specious explain how.
Surely one of LL's illustrious list of contributors could translate the syntactical contortions of Gordon Brown as he attempts to re-define what he meant by "British jobs for British people"? Or, is it because the strikers live outside of the M25, it is simpler to brand them as "xenopobic and racist" by Labour's nomenklatura, most of whom wouldn't recognise a working man he he offered them a bacon butty?
What is wrong with 'Cameron's' Conservatives? Everything, they are just wrong!
Do you think if he was black he might feel different about this topic?
I'm not accusing him of being racist, but it's just typical of "I'm alright, Jack" tories to only fight for what's personal to them. You know, rich people wanting tax cuts for the rich, but not caring about support for the poor. It's just the tory mentality and we're seeing it here from him.