Thatcher Barred

Morba · 7 Feb 2009 at 15:19

No, because she was not saying - look, he looks like a thief, she said he looked like a golliwog. People who just want to be offended decide to add the villain / thief context to make it seem worse than the comment was.

Nitefly · 7 Feb 2009 at 15:23

Morba said:
No, because she was not saying - look, he looks like a thief, she said he looked like a golliwog. People who just want to be offended decide to add the villain / thief context to make it seem worse than the comment was.

I disagree. You could go up to a black person and quite casually call them '******' in a non-discriminatory fashion and he will probably be immensely offended. In such scenarios, it isn't just the specific words used which are important, it is the connotations and historical meanings behind them.

Morba · 7 Feb 2009 at 15:25

Of course its not just the words!! its the bloody context they are used in, which you seem to be arguing against.

Nitefly · 7 Feb 2009 at 15:29

Morba said:
Of course its not just the words!! its the bloody context they are used in, which you seem to be arguing against.

You seem to be quite happily accepting one set of context (her intentions behind the comment), yet you are ignoring the other (the historical meanings or connotations behind the words used).

I'm not ignoring the former at all. I'm not even going to try and guess what her intentions were. She shouldn't have used the word as a descriptive comment outside of her own privacy, period.

DAnDan · 7 Feb 2009 at 17:29

"Oh no, I'm offended because apparently I look like a bad guy out of a few childrens books!"

That's just the same as telling someone they look like a film character, be it a good, or bad guy. Reading any more into the background of the word is far, far too much for something that was said on the spot. In the few seconds it was in her head before she said it, I highly doubt she analysed it as much as some people are, therefore making their take on it their own, and not hers.

vila · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:06

Nitefly said:
Jews are not a race

... could you be any more wrong?

Nitefly · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:22

vila said:
... could you be any more wrong?

A black man can be a Jew. Judaism is a religion. So, yes?

Greenlizard0 · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:24

Morba said:
makes no bloody difference! the bloke looks like something that EXISTS. so whats wrong with saying he looks like a golliwog?

If the bloke was just some random black man, then fair enough, it could be construed to be wrong. but given he looks like a golliwog, whats the problem?

It's not just a doll, it's a derogatory term. You've been told that repeatedly in this thread so stop ignoring that fact.

And oddly enough, the half black tennis player doesn't look like the doll, he's totally the wrong shade lol?! I don't even think his hair is braided ( ?) atm.

Morba · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:26

no, it can be used as a derogatory term.
the term is not the only meaning or usage of the word

Greenlizard0 · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:30

Morba said:
no, it can be used as a derogatory term.
the term is not the only meaning or usage of the word

Noting that her sentance was something along the lines of "froggy gollywog" I honestly can't believe you don't see what she said as derogatory.

Andrew1978 · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:33

Has she actually said who she was talking about? because in that tournament there were 2 black french tennis players and until i see an official comment by her that she was talking about tsonga i'm going to believe she was referring to gael monfils and as far as i know she said he's got hair like a golliwog and monfils does.

Morba · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:35

Greenlizard0 said:
Noting that her sentance was something along the lines of "froggy gollywog" I honestly can't believe you don't see what she said as derogatory.

Imo (and anyone with an reasonable thought should think the same), she meant he looked like a golliwog.
the froggy bit is completely different, hell, even FF gets called a frog on here, all in jest of course but it shows that words can be used without any malice.

Morba · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:35

Andrew1978 said:
Has she actually said who she was talking about? because in that tournament there were 2 black french tennis players and until i see an official comment by her that she was talking about tsonga i'm going to believe she was referring to gael monfils and as far as i know she said he's got hair like a golliwog and monfils does.

i believe it was gael monfils

Greenlizard0 · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:36

The Wiki entry sources The Times and Telegraph, both say Tsonga.

Andrew1978 · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:39

are they saying that because its more controversial though?

megatron · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:40

Greenlizard0 said:
half black tennis player doesn't look like the doll, he's totally the wrong shade lol?! I don't even think his hair is braided ( ?) atm.

Andrew1978 said:
its definately not this guy... (Gaël Monfils)

what?

OMG this guy has me in stitches for some reason.

Greenlizard0 · 8 Feb 2009 at 16:40

Morba said:
Imo (and anyone with an reasonable thought should think the same), she meant he looked like a golliwog.
the froggy bit is completely different, hell, even FF gets called a frog on here, all in jest of course but it shows that words can be used without any malice.

Froggy and gollywog have a totally different history.

"TENNIS PLAYER CALLS
CAROL THATCHER
'UNCONVINCING MALE
TRANSVESTITE'
"I hope that's not offensive," says unseeded golliwog"

The Daily Mash has a way with words...