Saturday - December 07, 2013

a tail of one chimp in the mist who be offended. as the white man’s burden gets a bit heavier.

Same old sorry assed story?  You betcha but a slight difference. Or should that be, a slight addition? 

Another poor negro is upset over a word used not in anger or insult but in a conversation.  And it isn’t even the word nigger.  Nope.

Seems like these days certain protected life forms can now even choose what words whitey gets to speak. 

We’ve done this Gollywog thing in the past and left it there more than a year ago.  Ppl offended on behalf of other people and all that nonsense.
Well, along comes this new crime, which has been brought to our attention by a broad nosed old bag who is going to take legal action.

First .... a bit of history on the subject.

H/T Wikipedia

The golliwog, golliwogg or golly was a black character in children’s books in the late 19th century usually depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children’s toy called the “golliwog”, and had great popularity in Europe and Australia into the 1970s.

The doll is characterised by black skin, eyes rimmed in white, clown lips and frizzy hair. While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy.

The image of the doll has become the subject of heated debate. While some see the golliwog as a cherished cultural artifact and childhood tradition, others argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent, along with pickaninnies, minstrels, mammy figures, and other caricatures, and has been described as “the least known of the major anti-Black caricatures in the United States”. In recent years, changing political attitudes with regard to race have reduced the popularity and sales of golliwogs as toys. Manufacturers who have used golliwogs as a motif have either withdrawn them as an icon, or changed the name. In particular, the association of the golliwog with the pejorative term “wog” has resulted in use of alternative names such as “golly” and “golly doll”.

British jam manufacturer James Robertson & Sons used a golliwog called Golly as its mascot from 1910, after John Robertson apparently saw children playing with golliwog dolls in America.

Robertson’s started producing promotional Golly badges in the 1920s, which could be obtained in exchange for tokens gained from their products. In 1983, the company’s products were boycotted by the Greater London Council as offensive, and in 1988 the character ceased to be used in television advertising. The company used to give away Golly badges and small plaster figures playing musical instruments or sports and other such themes. The badge collection scheme was withdrawn in 2001.

According to an editorial in The Times newspaper golliwogs were banned in Germany in 1934, on the grounds they were inappropriate toys for Aryan children.

In a statement reported by the BBC, Virginia (Ginny) C. Knox, previously brand director for Robertson’s and later Chief Operating Officer of the Culinary Brands Division of RHM, told The Herald Newspaper in Scotland in 2001 that the decision to remove the Golly symbol from Robertson’s jam and marmalade jars was taken after research found that children were not familiar with the character, although it still appealed to the older generations.

“We sell 45 million jars of jam and marmalade each year and they have pretty much all got Golly on them,” said Ms Knox. “We also sell 250,000 Golly badges to collectors and only get 10 letters a year from people who don’t like the Golliwog image.” Today, Robertson’s Golly badges remain highly collectible, with the very rarest sometimes selling for more than £1,000. = $1,634.52.
- 30 -

Well by now bmews, you get the picture.  Ah there’s trouble afoot as ....

Along came ..........

and sat down beside
her lawyers and said ...  I IZ OFFENDED!

Boss harassed me by using word ‘golliwog’, claims chef: Court to decide if word is inherently offensive to black people

Denise Lindsay worked at university hall of residence in London

Her boss Mark McAleese was discussing removal of character from jars

Robertson’s used the controversial character on labels until 2001

By Claire Ellicott

A black chef claims that her white boss racially harassed her when he mentioned the word ‘golliwog’ during a conversation about the famous Robertson’s jam labels.

Lawyers for Denise Lindsay, 45, claim that the word is ‘inherently discriminatory’ and has ‘racial overtones’ and should not have been used in front of their client.

But her boss Mark McAleese claims that he was talking about the jam label changing and has apologized to her and said that he had no desire to ‘violate her dignity’.

Her lawyers are battling to convince three top judges that the word is inherently offensive to black people and almost always discriminatory - no matter in what context it is used.

Violate her F***** what?  How could he possibly violate something she hasn’t got and never had?

So I guess what we now have is or might be .... caution about any conversation that could be overheard by any darkie anywhere who will make the decision as to what is and is not offensive, even if offense wasn’t intended and even if the listener wasn’t personally offended, he or she MIGHT have been and anyway, how many words will have to be altered or stricken off the list of acceptable conversation?

Just look at this.  Teach em to read and write, remove the chains and tell em they have rights and next thing you know they will want to marry your daughter.  Oh wait ... they already do.

Her barrister, Daniel Matovu, told the court: ‘White people don’t get called golliwogs. The word is an overtly racial comment. [The word] golliwog cannot be interpreted in any other way.

‘What the authorities make clear is that, when something is inherently discriminatory and clearly has racial overtones, there is no further debate.’

British jam manufacturers Robertson’s started using the Golly character, dressed in a yellow waistcoat and bow tie, on its jars from 1910.

In the late-1920s, the company started producing popular badges featuring the character, including a golfing, cricketer and footballer version. The items became collectables.

Miss Lindsay was working as an assistant chef manager at the LSE’s Bloomsbury student halls in February 2009 when the comment was made by chef manager Mr McAleese.

He used the word while discussing ‘the change to the label of Robertson’s jam’, the court heard.

But Miss Lindsay, of Clapham, south west London, was upset and an employment tribunal later found that what Mr McAleese said amounted to ‘an isolated act of harassment’.

He apologised and said that he had not uttered the word for the ‘purpose of violating her dignity’.

The tribunal ruled: ‘We have concluded that, for a white manager to use the words “golliwog” and “golliwog jam” in the course of a conversation with a black Afro-Caribbean colleague is unwanted conduct.’

However, Miss Lindsay’s harassment claim was dismissed after the tribunal said it had been brought too late.

Whether that decision was justified is one of the central issues now being considered by the Appeal Court judges.

Miss Lindsay’s other complaints of race discrimination were dismissed by the tribunal and, although she still has an active victimisation claim, she is asking the court to reconsider the issue.

Her barrister Mr Matovu argued that the tribunal was plainly wrong to dismiss the golliwog complaint purely on grounds of delay.

However, the LSE’s barrister, Shaen Catherwood, insisted that Mr McAleese’s use of the controverisal word - spoken quietly and quickly - did not come anywhere close to racial harassment.

‘I say it is unsatisfactory that somebody should be labelled with a finding of harassment on racial grounds when the actual context in which the word was used was innocent and inoffensive,’ he told the court.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke reserved their decision on the case until a later date.

Her lawyer is what?  Matovu?  What tribe is that?

This case should have been thrown out of court at the get go. I think the bitch is looking for a large payday.  Whitey owes her ya know.

The white man’s burden gets more bizarre every day.

Posted by peiper     on 12/07/2013 at 09:34 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Racism and race relations • REALLY WORTHLESS and PUTRID PEOPLE •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner