First we have Danny Baker making an offensive tweet about the new royal bairn.
Then we have the premises of a Jewish Brexit Party candidate daubed with a Nazi swastika.
Fortunately:
Sigh. Much has been done; it’s clear that more remains to be done.
I very, very much doubt that Danny Baker’s tweet had any racist intent at all (but then until it was mentioned on their wedding day I had no idea she was mixed-race, I still can’t see it myself.) That seems like a huge overreaction but that’s the danger with Twitter, there’s no room for nuance or explanation.
The second incident is the more worrying one by far and a curious target. Was it the Jewishness or the Brexit stance that prompted the perpetrator’s single neuron to melt?
When these things come up in another country, it’s doubly hard for me to know how things could be perceived by the locals. Had this been Michelle and Obama’s baby, there would be little room for doubt but it being your home country, Novelty Bobble,is the black people / monkey connection the only,obvious meaning this can have? Could it be more of comment on classism and a slam on the monarchy? Is it really feasible that Danny Baker, even if he had no racist intent, could he possibly be unaware that such a joke could be taken that way? I find it kind of odd that, while he’s given the obligatory apology he’s still kind of doubling down and expressing disbelief that someone would find this a fireable offense.
. . . and I just realized / remembered that **Quartz **is also from UK. Sorry, Q, I didn’t mean to discount your opinion.
Naivete is only charming in the very young. :dubious:
The concept of a royal being like a circus animal would normally be a completely banal observation, that’s pretty much what they are. He says that was his initial intent and meaning when he posted it and he gave no thought to any other spin that may be put on it.
I see no reason to doubt it. Seeing as the only other explanation would mean that he *meant *to equate a not-obviously-mixed-race child with an ape in the full knowledge that he would be instantly fired for it. The latter explanation is less credible than the former.
Anyway, it is a non-story and the second item that Quartz posted is far more important and worrying.
Did he or anyone else liken any of William’s children to monkeys? I doubt it. The racism seems obvious and for him to deny it disingenuous.
He’s never struck me as a racist before and his instant deletion and explanation seems perfectly credible. I very much doubt that he meant it as a racist slur.
I can’t perfectly divine his intent but see no harm in judging him by what I know of him previously, his actions afterwards and his own explanation. I’m not sure what else a reasonable person should do.
You obviously think that he purposefully intended it as a racist slur, I don’t find that credible in a BBC broadcaster of such long standing.
yes, very easy to find quotes from William himself.
Comparing Blacks to apes is Racism 101 and has been for centuries. In 2019, there is no excuse not to understand the implication of comparing a mixed race child to an ape, even if that was not the primary intent as claimed.
That wasn’t at birth.
No, calling a kid a “little monkey” is common British slang, it’s a term of endearment implying that a kid is active and maybe a bit naughty. It’s so widespread that the original metaphor is carries no semantic weight - if you called a kid a little monkey in the U.K. it would not bring a literal monkey to mind. So the expression carries no racial connotation - it refers to innocent behavioral traits in a child you’re familiar with, and could be applied to a child of any race. If (say) Archie’s babysitter at the age of 5 had called him a little monkey, any furore could safely be dismissed.
Portraying a child that you don’t know personally as an actual monkey or ape in a cartoon is a different matter entirely.
I don’t share your optimism, pity the babysitter that tests that hypothesis.
Possibly, but I think the most likely reason for doing so (in the UK at least) would be a perfectly benign, clear reference to the very widespread practice of calling children “little monkeys”. As you say, it is a common UK term with no racist connotations. That would certainly be the first thing that springs to my mind.
It may be banal, but that interpretation of what he posted is obscure.
I know nothing about his history, so I accept what you say. But if he’s not a racist, he’s an unthinking fool for not realizing the far more obvious meaning of such an image. It seems to me that as a BBC broadcaster he should be fired either for racism or incompetence, take your pick.
Perhaps Danny Baker’s defense should cite precedent, that Harry was not fired for this:
No, that’s completely wrong. The term “little monkey” refers to active/naughty behavior. That’s not applicable to a baby, it would only apply until a child’s old enough to be active and get themselves into trouble, and would generally only be used for a child that you know, in order to be familiar with their behavior.
Cite: clearly nobody in the U.K. sees this benign interpretation from the image, even Baker himself who states an obscure reference to a circus animal metaphor.
My mouth literally dropped open when I read that Danny Baker story. I honestly can’t see how he didn’t see the problem with the picture. Even if it’s not a common trope in the UK, if he took two seconds to think about it, surely he would have seen it. It’s bloody obvious.
The connection to “circus animals” is nothing I would have thought of. Did he depict Meghan and Harry as clowns?
I didn’t say that there would be a furore. A prudent babysitter would avoid using British slang that might be misinterpreted. But there would be a valid defense that it’s innocent use of a common expression with no connotation intended. Baker has no such defense.
A common football hooligan taunt to opposing black players was to throw bananas on the soccer field. The meaning (or at least the implication) is well known. Whether this commentator meant that or was horribly naive is open for discussion.
I think Hanlon’s Razor applies here (“Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”) based on my experience with Baker - I’ve not encountered him doing or saying racist things (although he may have and I missed it), but he’s done and said a lot of stupid things even by his own admission. I’ll also admit that I forget that Meghan *nee *Markel is mixed race, mostly because I don’t spend much time thinking about the royals and their private lives.
As for the other idiot - well, he’s clearly scum but you have to admit that a 30ft high swastika is “ROMANI ITE DOMUM” level of commitment to the cause.
I understand why BBC fired him, I personally think that any BBC broadcaster tweeting in the current climate is allowing themselves to be a hostage to fortune and more fool them. No matter what you mean, no matter what you intend, someone will find it offensive and then it is the luck of the draw. Better to stay out of it.
I don’t think he meant it as a racial slur, I don’t think he is a racist but I’m not going down that rabbit-hole again as I’ve made my thoughts on such matter clear elsewhere. As I think it is a non-story and not indicative of racism in the UK it is of less interest than the pretty unambiguous antisemitic threat also mentioned by the OP.