When is a wild prejudice OK....?

When its against Ginger haired people, apparantly.



First let me state an interest in Ginge. My hair may have darkened, greyed at the corners and become scarce all over... but my indentitification with the cause is eternal and fringed with pride.



And in that light I read a news story on the BBC website today of a Christmas Card being sold in York carrying the message ""Santa loves all kids. Even ginger ones."

The redheaded mother of three redhead daughters complains to Tescos, who immediatly withdraw it from sale with apologies. The makers of the card refuse to comment. Presumeably someone in their design department mutters something about people not having a sense of humour. 'Political Correctness gone mad' may even get a mention.


The question here, laying aside immediate responses like 'what if ginger had been replaced by black', is why is this card 'funny'.

I was asked this once by a university housemate - not about this particular case of course - but about what I find funny. I still find this difficult to explain. I tend to take this on a case by case basis, but for the sake of this posting I'll need some kind of definition. Funny is about personal foibles, its about something of the unexpected. Clever wordplay and satire come into it to, no doubt.

There is only one 'point' being made by this card - That kids with ginger hair are less lovable for that reason alone. Having a colour hair isn't a foible. There is no word play, and its not particularly surprising either. 'Ginge's' nave been the 'acceptable' target for a while. Satire is about what adults that do that is funny. its not about what children are.

This card wasn't just offensive - It was lazy and unfunny, it promoted laughing at difference for the sake of it.

And yeah, i know this posting hasn't been as light hearted as i usually aim for , but so be it.