O/T Genuine Question - Golliwogs, Racist or Not?

ClaretDiver · Post by **ClaretDiver** » Thu May 11, 2017 6:18 am

Just been reading a story of some woman who has taken massive offence to a small shop in Hawkshead selling 'Gollies'. Insists they are racist and she is appalled that in this day and age they are being sold.

What say you? I, personally, don't think they are racist.....

This is a genuine question as after spending so much tmie living abroad have I become more culturally aware of such things and so I can 'accept' more.

UTC

CD

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu May 11, 2017 6:52 am

They are meant to be a child's toy and in the era that they were first produced they were part of what was deemed to be acceptable. However they portray a racial stereotype that nowadays is unacceptable so yes, in the context of today's values I would say they portray a racist attitude

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu May 11, 2017 7:28 am

Times have changed. As a lad I remember a mate of mine up near St. Bede's at Nelson having a black/brown cat called Nigger and not a lot was thought about it, the ignorance was never questioned. Whether the name came from the colour or the label for a race of human beings matters not.
Thank God, we've moved on. Golliwogs should be a thing of the past, I think we're better than that these days.

snapcrackleandpop · Post by **snapcrackleandpop** » Thu May 11, 2017 7:36 am

Buckle up.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:03 am

No wonder the world is so bad when so many people were brought up on racist jam

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:05 am

The original incarnation of Golliwogs is not racist in any way or form, in fact they were portrayed as jovial, friendly and gallant hero type by the inventor Florence Kate Upton.

However, as with many other things, they were used by racists to mock black people which in turn created the association of being a racist toy. This cannot be undone, and as such they are now, and will always be, seen as being racist.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:09 am

Not in and of themselves they aren't, but they have racist connotations as described above.

If it offends black people then I can understand that. Having a golliwog isn't that important to me personally so I wouldn't give one if they got banned.

Hopefully the th read can stay tasteful and on topic but I'm not holding my breath.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:10 am

I used to have two knitted dolls - one's face was knitted with black wool, the other with pink wool. Were they both racist, or just one of them, or neither?

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:19 am

dsr wrote:I used to have two knitted dolls - one's face was knitted with black wool, the other with pink wool. Were they both racist, or just one of them, or neither?

Neither, it's not racist to represent the diversity of life.

ClaretDiver · Post by **ClaretDiver** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:37 am

Thanks guys so far for your input. I guess it is very much a personal view. There are certain words in the English language that have also been 'adopted' through the years that once of a while would not have had racist connotations but now do but only when spoken by certain people....

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:47 am

It's only racist to the person who wants it to be. Like everything in life these days some people will always find something negative to complain about.

SparkyClaret · Post by **SparkyClaret** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:55 am

I'm pretty sure there was a Noddy story in which Golliwogs were featured. If memory serves they nicked his car, and were portrayed as thieves?

Whilst I can understand why people of an older generation may not see what the fuss is about due to them having been marketed as toys, we should probably consign them to history. Let's face it, a jet black face where the only features are bright red lips and the whites of the eyes is a pretty ****** up portrayal of black people.

bartons baggage · Post by **bartons baggage** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:57 am

ClaretDiver wrote:Just been reading a story of some woman who has taken massive offence to a small shop in Hawkshead selling 'Gollies'. Insists they are racist and she is appalled that in this day and age they are being sold.

What say you? I, personally, don't think they are racist.....

This is a genuine question as after spending so much tmie living abroad have I become more culturally aware of such things and so I can 'accept' more.

UTC

CD

Are these Golliwogs gender neutral?.
Is there anything about them that could offend the LGBT community?
Or are they just another thing that the righteous mob can bleat about?.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:02 am

dsr wrote:I used to have two knitted dolls - one's face was knitted with black wool, the other with pink wool. Were they both racist, or just one of them, or neither?

Nothing at all wrong with black dolls - in fact they are a very good thing, but what has that to do with golliwogs?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:09 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Nothing at all wrong with black dolls - in fact they are a very good thing, but what has that to do with golliwogs?

They were knitted dolls, one black and one pink; a golly is just a knitted black doll. Isn't it?

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:15 am

Genuine answer - are they bo!!ocks.

Anyone can find offence in anything, if they look long and hard enough.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:15 am

dsr wrote:They were knitted dolls, one black and one pink; a golly is just a knitted black doll. Isn't it?

Erm .. no. Did you ever watch the Black and White Minstrel Show? Maybe you still watch the old vhs tapes.(I know someone who does!)

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:18 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Erm .. no. Did you ever watch the Black and White Minstrel Show? Maybe you still watch the old vhs tapes.(I know someone who does!)

Occasionally, but not for forty years. What exactly is a golly if it's not a knitted doll, and what relevance has it to the black & white minstrels? Is a golly a more specific subset of black knitted dolls?

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:24 am

No, but yes.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:25 am

I think that is probably the best answer yet Benny.

Correct and to the point.

vinrogue · Post by **vinrogue** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:33 am

Personally I would say they were not racist, I think the Germans tried to ban them in the 1930's for completely the opposite reason of why we are afraid of being called a racist today, I think back then they looked on the golliwog as promoting black people as happy people to be admired. How the world has changed, you can call an Australian an Aussie but god help you if you abbreviate other countries in the same way.

Cleveleys_claret · Post by **Cleveleys_claret** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:37 am

Sorry but why on earth would anybody sell these without wanting to provoke a reaction. We know they shouldn't 're racist but sadly are associated with a time where it was acceptable.

The noddy episode was called 'Three little Golliwogs' which has a song called 'Ten little niggers' which celebrates the death of 10 little black children. The characters that steal the car are called Golly, Woggee and Nigger.

How can such names/ stories be deemed as anything but racist and inflammatory in today's society

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:39 am

Just yet another person pretending to be offended, in order to cause controversy and give themselves a feel of importance and significance.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:40 am

dsr wrote:Occasionally, but not for forty years. What exactly is a golly if it's not a knitted doll, and what relevance has it to the black & white minstrels? Is a golly a more specific subset of black knitted dolls?

Ok - I guess I'll have to explain.
Firstly a golliwog isn't a knitted doll. You could knit one - admittedly, but they were originally cartoon type illustrations,and when I collected them they were metal badges or statuettes. ( I had a full band - we must have eaten lots of jam butties).
Now, secondly, why my reference to the Black and White Minstrels. Try looking at the frizzy hair, the white eyes and the big red lips. Now do you get it?
They aren't ordinary dolls are they?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:41 am

These questions are going to arise now we've had Brexit.

For example, should the BBC or ITV bring back programmes such as 'Love Thy Neighbour' where words such as NigNog or Sambo were used?

We've moved on from those times and so should society.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:43 am

Spijed manages to find another victim of brexit.

Casino's you have be warned, once he hears there is a game called blackjack you have had it.

FulledgeClaret · Post by **FulledgeClaret** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:45 am

stuff like this is only racist if you want it to be.

spadesclaret · Post by **spadesclaret** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:46 am

As a little girl I was not a bit interested in baby dolls but I did have three toys that I loved to bits: my teddy (which I still have), a knitted doll called Trudy (pictured), and a golliwog. Those three offered me comfort when I needed it and I still get a warm feeling when I see a golly. Never in a million years would I have thought a golliwog could be racist. When I see a golly I see a toy, loved by a child. I do not see a caricature of a black person. What a sad world we live in.

I wish I had a photo of me with Golly.

: image-7.jpg (428.04 KiB) Viewed 5454 times

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:47 am

Lovely comments about discrimination from people who've never faced discrimination.

It's a bit like the racist Disney film Song of The South featuring Zip-a-dee-doo-dah. A lovely song telling us how wonderful it was to be a slave.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:48 am

claretdom wrote:Spijed manages to find another victim of brexit.

So when people, especially the older generation, talk about taking control back from the EU and removing fear from what they can and can't say you don't think there is any link?

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:52 am

Is the Swastika an offensive symbol? It shouldn't be, but it is now because of bad things (understatement). It wasn't ever intended to be, and for thousands of years it wasn't. But now it is.

Same with the golly. Tis what it is.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:53 am

It's so confusing nowadays I don't even know what the correct term is anymore more.

Do we refer to them as black, coloured or ethnic.

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:54 am

I dig the mohawk, spades.

spadesclaret · Post by **spadesclaret** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:55 am

duncandisorderly wrote:I dig the mohawk, spades.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:55 am

A golliwog is a doll (or originally cartoon) version of 'blackface' the tradition of white people blacking up for entertainment purposes. It's a racial stereotype. So yes, it's racist. Although I'm guessing if you don't think blackface is racist then you won't think a golliwog is either. I had one as a child in the late sixties/early seventies.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu May 11, 2017 9:56 am

Is any of what you just asked relevant to this spijed.

You are letting it consume you.

SammyBoy · Post by **SammyBoy** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:03 am

Golliwogs are way before my time, and I honestly can't see why anybody under the age of 70 would want to cling on to them. At the time they probably entertained a generation of innocent children who look back at them fondly, but in the cold light of day it's clear that they're also tainted by association with the generally more racist attitude society had back then. Just leave them in the past, there's plenty of less controversial toys for the kids of today to play with.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:06 am

It's probably best just not to make them which is a shame. I had one as a child but as stated above have been used for racial slurs. This particular case looks like another person looking to be offended though. Do we change the words to baa baa black sheep ? Interesting point about Ausie not being offensive. Is the word Jap offensive ?

SammyBoy · Post by **SammyBoy** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:12 am

Blackrod wrote:It's probably best just not to make them which is a shame. I had one as a child but as stated above have been used for racial slurs. This particular case looks like another person looking to be offended though. Do we change the words to baa baa black sheep ? Interesting point about Ausie not being offensive. Is the word Jap offensive ?

I think it depends on the intent behind it, the most obvious example is the shortened version of Pakistani which is loaded with racist connotations and when it first became widely used was mostly done so in a very negative way. I know what you mean though, at face value it's no different to calling a bloke from Melbourne an Aussie, it's just all about intent and history for me.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:13 am

Blackrod wrote:Interesting point about Ausie not being offensive. Is the word Jap offensive ?

It's a complete red herring. Just because one abbreviated nationality has been used by racist as a derogatory term it doesn't mean every other abbreviation is or isn't. Context is everything.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:19 am

Anyone remember the Robertson's gollies? Golliwog stickers, save enough and you could send off for a "golly" musician figure. We had a whole band.
I've never seen it as racist, or offensive. I believe they are quite collectible now!

And you had the Black And White Minstrels: they were good.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:21 am

FulledgeClaret wrote:stuff like this is only racist if you want it to be.

This. And these people who want it to be, are people who don't have a life. So they want to be the centre of attention for saying things like this. It's no different to the likes of Katie Hopkins. They don't really agree with what they're saying, but they know it'll make them feel special/significant for coming out and saying it. This 'some woman' who will no doubt make herself known in the papers, needs to get out more.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:23 am

FactualFrank wrote:This. And these people who want it to be, are people who don't have a life. So they want to be the centre of attention for saying things like this. It's no different to the likes of Katie Hopkins. They don't really agree with what they're saying, but they know it'll make them feel special/significant for coming out and saying it. This 'some woman' who will no doubt make herself known in the papers, needs to get out more.

Historical context says otherwise.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:24 am

claretdom wrote:Spijed manages to find another victim of brexit.

Defour doesn't get a game for us because of Brexit you know.

Sarum · Post by **Sarum** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:25 am

When I was little I loved gollies, as they were referred to at home. Did I grow up then to believe that black men were only worthy of menial, subservient roles in society? No, because that's not what I understood the Golly to represent and also because in that same era there were plenty of black personalities who had become stars, famous achievers: Martin Luther King, Mohammad Ali, the great jazz and Motown artists to name but a very few.

Let's imagine that the same toy/character was to be introduced today for the first time, with the name "Gollywog"; how would that be received? Probably with distaste or dismay, not least because the term "wog" has evolved to become an insulting term towards black people generally. So even though at the time of my childhood I felt nothing but affection for my
Golly badge, I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing that same name on a t shirt today.

However, if that same toy/character was to be invented today under a different and neutral name such as "Harry the Marmalade Butler" for example, the public's response might be more favourable because a butler has become a respected and skilled profession and this little black chap Harry has all the skills required. That feels much more positive and inclusive to me.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:26 am

I can't believe people are ignoring historical context on a topic on here.

Sutton-Claret · Post by **Sutton-Claret** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:27 am

Can't understand why people get offended by such things - there's far more important things to worry about today.....

My understanding of the word WOG is Westernised Oriental Gentleman - which in my eyes isn't offensive at all. It was also used for people Woking On Government Service (WOGS).

I was working on a contract a few years ago where we had to replace some old pipework valves and fittings. The old fittings had the word WOG cast into them (Water - Oil - Gas). The MD wanted confirmation that the new fittings wouldn't have the word on and requested a sample before he would sign it off...

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:27 am

I had a Golly and also probably still have, in my loft, an Enid Blyton book - The Three Golliwogs.

Never have I ever connected Golly to a caricature black person.

My sister still has her doll called 'Black Sue'. Its just a doll with a black body instead of a white one.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:27 am

Sarum wrote:When I was little I loved gollies, as they were referred to at home. Did I grow up then to believe that black men were only worthy of menial, subservient roles in society? No, because that's not what I understood the Golly to represent and also because in that same era there were plenty of black personalities who had become stars, famous achievers: Martin Luther King, Mohammad Ali, the great jazz and Motown artists to name but a very few.

Let's imagine that the same toy/character was to be introduced today for the first time, with the name "Gollywog"; how would that be received? Probably with distaste or dismay, not least because the term "wog" has evolved to become an insulting term towards black people generally. So even though at the time of my childhood I felt nothing but affection for my
Golly badge, I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing that same name on a t shirt today.

However, if that same toy/character was to be invented today under a different and neutral name such as "Harry the Marmalade Butler" for example, the public's response might be more favourable because a butler has become a respected and skilled profession and this little black chap Harry has all the skills required. That feels much more positive and inclusive to me.

It's not really the name that's the issue, it's the jet black face with big red lips, staring white eyes and fuzzy hair.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Thu May 11, 2017 10:27 am

It depends if people from Australia have been beaten by a mob spat at had excrement put through their letter box had their house set on fire and had slogans like go home Aussie **** daubed on their gable end.

The first part of Pakistan is originally a beautiful word meaning pure and I'm sure would have been welcomed as a term of affection as well as banter (like with The Australians) if it wasn't for the fact it was also attached to abuse of the vilest kind.

Australians are seen as "White Cousins" and therefore there is banter and no discrimination.

Unless you've faced vandalism of your property, being chased down the street everyday - in fear of your life constantly whether through having your house set on fire or being set upon by a mob.

It's not the name calling it's all the other things that go with it like not being able to get a job because of how you look and not your abilities.

But because the words are almost welded to the abuse - that's why it's discrimination - and also why words used to abuse "White Heterosexual Men" are not considered discrimination - offensive yes - but unless there is the other physical abuse and threats to life and property it's just words.

I'm afraid some people mistake common human compassion and kindness as being political correctness - The two couldn't be further apart from each other.