Are Golliwogs racist?

old hippy

paddy147 wrote: »

The people who think golliwogs are racist......are infact racist.






Think about it.

I have. Now I suggest you think about it. Seriously.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Henlars67 wrote: »

Ya, glad somebody said it. I would never have thought that a golliwog was a caricature of a black person.

somebody who thinks that a golliwog is racist obviously does think that they are a caricature of a black person.

Are you for real?.. Of course they're a caricature of a black person, does that mean I'm a racist?.. No it mean's I'm bleed'n honest about it.

When I was a child black people didn't really exist in Ireland, save for a few doctors I guess and black people (mostly on TV) were regularly referred to as 'Golliwogs'.

I even remember a few mates who had tight curly hair being given the nickname 'Golly'.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Calvin Disgusting Triad wrote: »

Are you for real?.. Of course they're a caricature of a black person, does that mean I'm a racist?.. No it mean's I'm bleed'n honest about it.

When I was a child black people didn't really exist in Ireland, save for a few doctors I guess and black people (mostly on TV) were regularly referred to as 'Golliwogs'.

I even remember a few mates who had tight curly hair being given the nickname 'Golly'.

In my part of the country in the 1980's with had seven black American lads who lived in the area from Sept-March and the whole city knew and loved them for the sporting skills which use to sell out sports halls up and down the countey. They were very different times back then and what was acceptable and the normal in thoes days would be frowned upon(righty so) in the Ireland of 2013.

Lelantos

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

In my part of the country in the 1980's with had seven black American lads who lived in the area from Sept-March and the whole city knew and loved them for the sporting skills which use to sell out sports halls up and down the countey. They were very different times back then and what was acceptable and the normal in thoes days would be frowned upon(righty so) in the Ireland of 2013.

The golden era of basketball in Ireland when black Americans were nigh on worshipped by teenagers.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

They were very different times back then and what was acceptable and the normal in thoes days would be frowned upon(righty so) in the Ireland of 2013.

Yes they were very different.

Black dogs were called 'N*gger (seriously people!), velcro was even called 'N*ggers hair and Kiwi shoe polish called their black polish 'Negro'.

I'm not sure whether we were racist or just plain old ignorant back then because everyone got it.

Tbh I think we were mostly just plain old thick and ignorant as donkey sh*t.

pickarooney

Nodin wrote: »

Some don't consider it offensive because they don't know its background. If they did, they would. Of course somebody with some degree of African ancestry might have no problem with a theatrical tradition of sketches and songs based on portraying "blacks" as thick, stupid, lazy and ignorant, but I'd say in the main, given a few samples, they would.

But the background in the given example is a child from Leeds dressing up as a footballer from Senegal he admired. How is it germane or honest to apply a background that has absolutely nothing to do with the scenario in question? do you think in this case that a) El Hadj Diouf is ignorant of US history and b) if you were to tell him all about it he would suddenly feel aggrieved by his fan's actions?

I find it highly disrepectful that you can suppose to know how anybody feels about a particualr issue and astoundingly arrogant to assume that anyone granted the benefit of your perspective would automatically agree with you.

grenache

Boombastic wrote: »

Don't know, Wasn't Big Ears under attack too

1) Because of his name and
2) for sleeping in the same bed as Noddy?

My sister used to refer to me as 'Noddy' when I was young because I had big ears.

Rasheed

Calvin Disgusting Triad wrote: »

Yes they were very different.

Black dogs were called 'N*gger (seriously people!), velcro was even called 'N*ggers hair and Kiwi shoe polish called their black polish 'Negro'.

I'm not sure whether we were racist or just plain old ignorant back then because everyone got it.

Tbh I think we were mostly just plain old thick and ignorant as donkey sh*t.

It wasn't 'thick' or 'ignorant as donkey shiite', it was not knowing any better. That's all. Now when people do know, they've no excuse. And it's ridiculous when people try to hold on to the notion that its still ok to say it.

Das Kitty

Calvin Disgusting Triad wrote: »

Black dogs were called 'N*gger (seriously people!)

My Granny had one of those... My aunt pressured her until she changed it. To Tinker.

Delightful woman, my grandmother.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Lelantos wrote: »

The golden era of basketball in Ireland when black Americans were nigh on worshipped by teenagers.

When the lads hit the clubs after the game the white boys knew we were gonna find it hard to have some action with the ladies.:)

You should try and get your hands on a copy of Hanging from the Rafters, some of the stories from the early days are just incredible.

Lelantos

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

When the lads hit the clubs after the game the white boys knew we were gonna find it hard to have some action with the ladies.:)

You should try and get your hands on a copy of Hanging from the Rafters, some of the stories from the early days are just incredible.

I know all about it, I was involved in bball in Kerry

sbsquarepants

fatknacker wrote: »

I am in two minds about it. If someone wore make-up to portray black people in a negative light, then of course. Dressing up as a black person for something like Hallowe'en though...?

Dressing up for haloween is dressing up for haloween - that's it. Nazi's, priests, trannys, jimmy saville, golliwogs it's all good.

Henlars67 wrote: »

Ya, glad somebody said it. I would never have thought that a golliwog was a caricature of a black person.

somebody who thinks that a golliwog is racist obviously does think that they are a caricature of a black person.

I don't think they're racist but of course they're a caricature of a black person (it's a teddy bear minstral) - what the hell else could you think it is?

9959

0066ad wrote: »

"You can never tiptoe lightly enough once you start building a world of eggshells. PC makes communication impossible. It renders a people literally illiterate: The conventions of language used by functioning societies throughout human history - irony, indirect quotation, period evocation, and, yes, even obsolete comic stereotype - are all suddenly suspect."-Mark Steyn

"Objecting to the 'tyranny' of PC has become a means of making sexism and racism acceptable again.

To say we should watch our words dosen't mean that we shouldn't use the words that come naturally to us. It's just that the words that come naturally to us will tend to reflect the reality around us, and there's ugliness and repression around which we should be concerned about.

To call somebody from the Travelling community a "knacker", for example, is to express a particular attitude towards Travellers.
Similarly with "Yid" for Jew, "coon" for black people, etc, etc.
Words don't create oppression, but their casual use can confer a seeming legitimacy on oppression.
That's what we have to watch" - Eamonn McCann, writer, journalist and political activist.
Written in 'Hot Press' 20 years ago!

Lelantos

9959 wrote: »

"Objecting to the 'tyranny' of PC has become a means of making sexism and racism acceptable again.

To say we should watch our words dosen't mean that we shouldn't use the words that come naturally to us. It's just that the words that come naturally to us will tend to reflect the reality around us, and there's ugliness and repression around which we should be concerned about.

To call somebody from the Travelling community a "knacker", for example, is to express a particular attitude towards Travellers.
Similarly with "Yid" for Jew, "coon" for black people, etc, etc.
Words don't create oppression, but their casual use can confer a seeming legitimacy on oppression.
That's what we have to watch" - Eamonn McCann, writer, journalist and political activist.
Written in 'Hot Press' 20 years ago!

And yet, black people use the n word in common day language, spurs fans refer to themselves as yids, why is it acceptable in some cases & not others.

9959

Das Kitty wrote: »

My Granny had one of those... My aunt pressured her until she changed it. To Tinker.

Delightful woman, my grandmother.

Perhaps she had trouble with her 'th's' and changed her mind after tinking about it.

Just a tought

Rosy Posy

My daughter (aged 4) loves this song. We got her a golliwog for her birthday. We are a mixed race family and I try to represent the ethnic rainbow in our dolls. It was murder trying to get a dolls house family to match ours. Eventually I managed to get on to a real live and sympathetic person at the warehouse who was willing to open a few boxes and jumble them around!

As a 'person of colour' growing up in Ireland in the eighties was bizarre- heads would turn the whole way down Grafton Street. I experienced the same thing again in Eastern Europe in my early twenties. It wasn't hostility, just ignorance (the same thing as not knowing any better imo).

Henlars67

Rosy Posy wrote: »

My daughter (aged 4) loves this song. We got her a golliwog for her birthday. We are a mixed race family and I try to represent the ethnic rainbow in our dolls. It was murder trying to get a dolls house family to match ours. Eventually I managed to get on to a real live and sympathetic person at the warehouse who was willing to open a few boxes and jumble them around!

As a 'person of colour' growing up in Ireland in the eighties was bizarre- heads would turn the whole way down Grafton Street. I experienced the same thing again in Eastern Europe in my early twenties. It wasn't hostility, just ignorance (the same thing as not knowing any better imo).

So you as a 'person of colour' aren't offended by golliwogs.

That will be most distressing to a few of the posters here but I assume it won't stop them getting offended on your behalf.

Unless they're complete hypocrites they'll be along shortly to explain to you why you should be offended.

9959

Lelantos wrote: »

And yet, black people use the n word in common day language, spurs fans refer to themselves as yids, why is it acceptable in some cases & not others.

Three main reasons.

1. Context

2. Context

3. Context

twinQuins

Henlars67 wrote: »

So you as a 'person of colour' aren't offended by golliwogs.

That will be most distressing to a few of the posters here but I assume it won't stop them getting offended on your behalf.

Unless they're complete hypocrites they'll be along shortly to explain to you why you should be offended.

It's funny in an ironic way because you're doing the exact thing you're criticising other people for! :pac:

No one's saying it's offensive to all black people, just that it's widely considered offensive.
Now, would you like to revise your straw man?

Rosy Posy

Henlars67 wrote: »

So you as a 'person of colour' aren't offended by golliwogs.

That will be most distressing to a few of the posters here but I assume it won't stop them getting offended on your behalf.

Unless they're complete hypocrites they'll be along shortly to explain to you why you should be offended.

Ironically enough, in my house growing up golliwogs and Noddy were banned for this reason by my (white) mother. My black father wasn't bothered one way or the other. I think it was the fact that the golliwog in Noddy was demonised that was her problem.

Like the song, and another poster mentioned- its all to do with context. Its not the word, its the intent. Surely its more racist to insist on monoethnic dolls? That's my view anyway.

Rosy Posy

Also I don't think you have to be black to be offended by racism. I find homophobia offensive and I'm not gay.

I suppose I just choose to see the golliwog as a cute doll with black skin, its a caricature, sure but aren't all dolls (apart from those freaky plastic baby dolls)?

Henlars67

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Also I don't think you have to be black to be offended by racism. I find homophobia offensive and I'm not gay.

I suppose I just choose to see the golliwog as a cute doll with black skin, its a caricature, sure but aren't all dolls (apart from those freaky plastic baby dolls)?

Of course one doesn't have to be black to be offended by racism.

I just can't understand why some white people think that it's up to them to decide what black people should be offended by.

old hippy

Henlars67 wrote: »

Of course one doesn't have to be black to be offended by racism.

I just can't understand why some white people think that it's up to them to decide what black people should be offended by.

Absolute bobbins. People are offended by gross caricatures, stereotypes and racism. Nobody has a monopoly on "deciding" who is to be offended by what.

Do you think there's a secret cabal in place where a bunch of white people decide how black people should be offended?

Bigot.

Henlars67

old hippy wrote: »

Absolute bobbins. People are offended by gross caricatures, stereotypes and racism. Nobody has a monopoly on "deciding" who is to be offended by what.

Do you think there's a secret cabal in place where a bunch of white people decide how black people should be offended?

Bigot.

I am certainly not a bigot. You have no right to call me one.

A 'person of colour' has come on here and said that she is not offended by golliwogs and your response is to call me names.

Once one party resorts to calling names then as far as I'm concerned the discussion is over. I'm done with this thread now.

Name calling is the refuge of the intellectually defeated

old hippy

Henlars67 wrote: »

So you as a 'person of colour' aren't offended by golliwogs.

That will be most distressing to a few of the posters here but I assume it won't stop them getting offended on your behalf.

Unless they're complete hypocrites they'll be along shortly to explain to you why you should be offended.

If Rosy is ok with it, that's her business. Not every mixed race/black person thinks the same, despite your inferrences that they do.

sbsquarepants

old hippy wrote: »

If Rosy is ok with it, that's her business. Not every mixed race/black person thinks the same, despite your inferrences that they do.

At what point does it become acceptable then, is it ok if only 49% are offended? Is it still unacceptable if 1% are offended? 0.001%?
You can't please everyone - someone somewhere is bound to take offence at the most innocuous of things.
It's a god damned childs toy not a burning cross.
I happen to think they're quite cute - i loved mine as a child, it didn't make me hate blacks or look down on anyone - it was just a fúcking teddy bear!

old hippy

Henlars67 wrote: »

I am certainly not a bigot. You have no right to call me one.

A 'person of colour' has come on here and said that she is not offended by golliwogs and your response is to call me names.

Once one party resorts to calling names then as far as I'm concerned the discussion is over. I'm done with this thread now.

Name calling is the refuge of the intellectually defeated

And flouncing. Don't forget flouncing.

You called me and others "hypocrites" because one person here says they are not offended.

Good for Rosy but I'm sure she wouldn't claim to speak for all mixed race people. I certainly don't. But as pointed out very early on in the thread - caricatures do upset people and cause offence.

But you refused to even entertain the notion, so I asked you have you asked your black colleagues or friends or family. Several times. Then you finally said some lads you kicked a ball about with aren't bothered.

Good for them. Context, context, context.

twinQuins

sbsquarepants wrote: »

At what point does it become acceptable then, is it ok if only 49% are offended? Is it still unacceptable if 1% are offended? 0.001%?
You can't please everyone - someone somewhere is bound to take offence at the most innocuous of things.
It's a god damned childs toy not a burning cross.
I happen to think they're quite cute - i loved mine as a child, it didn't make me hate blacks or look down on anyone - it was just a fúcking teddy bear!

A child's toy originating in a bygone era where black people were seen as subhuman. You're trying to create a false dichotomy here - yes, it's a child's toy but it's also based on stereotyped black facial structure.

And we come back to my initial point - Ireland is quite an insular island; people simply don't realise that elsewhere in the world, it's not seen as innocent as it is here.
I'm not saying having fond memories of owning one in childhood makes you a racist, or anything like that, I'm just pointing out that in this day and age people should understand that to many other people it's a symbol of racism.

Look, let's take another example: the 'eenie-meenie-minie' rhyme. Even when I was a child it had the word '******'. We didn't know what that meant at the time and we used it innocently but I wouldn't, now, say that it's fine just because at the time we were ignorant of its meaning.

Ultimately, it doesn't make you a racist for liking it as a child but you also have to understand that it's symbolic of a time when caricaturing black people was seen as acceptable.

newport2

old hippy wrote: »

People are offended by gross caricatures, stereotypes and racism. Nobody has a monopoly on "deciding" who is to be offended by what.

If nobody has a monopoly on deciding who is to be offended by what, how did you decide to state definitively in the sentence before what people are offended by?

old hippy wrote: »

But you refused to even entertain the notion, so I asked you have you asked your black colleagues or friends or family. Several times.

I asked two black colleagues and came back to you with what they said. You ignored/disregarded their opinion because it wasn't what you wanted them to say.

newport2

twinQuins wrote: »

A child's toy originating in a bygone era where black people were seen as subhuman. You're trying to create a false dichotomy here - yes, it's a child's toy but it's also based on stereotyped black facial structure.

And we come back to my initial point - Ireland is quite an insular island; people simply don't realise that elsewhere in the world, it's not seen as innocent as it is here.
I'm not saying having fond memories of owning one in childhood makes you a racist, or anything like that, I'm just pointing out that in this day and age people should understand that to many other people it's a symbol of racism.

Look, let's take another example: the 'eenie-meenie-minie' rhyme. Even when I was a child it had the word '******'. We didn't know what that meant at the time and we used it innocently but I wouldn't, now, say that it's fine just because at the time we were ignorant of its meaning.

Ultimately, it doesn't make you a racist for liking it as a child but you also have to understand that it's symbolic of a time when caricaturing black people was seen as acceptable.

So going forward, can we have any toys with black skin? If a few are deemed acceptible, how long before they get classified as racist by someone leaping to conclusions about their origin years down the line? Are people pushing for a white supremacy in the toy production line?

twinQuins

Is this a pisstake? Do you actually think it's the skin colour that's the issue or is this more of the faux outrage?

In the off-chance that it's not have a look back over my post. Especially the part that says "stereotyped black facial structure".

newport2

twinQuins wrote: »

Is this a pisstake? Do you actually think it's the skin colour that's the issue or is this more of the faux outrage?

In the off-chance that it's not have a look back over my post. Especially the part that says "stereotyped black facial structure".

Fair enough, I meant it a bit tongue in cheek. But in new versions of Noddy books being written, are we supposed to re-write history now? Native americans do not get portrayed well or fairly in western films and books. Should they be all re-written and re-made too? Virtually any books written in the past will reflect the attitude of people back then, and like it or not, racism used to be rampant in society. There's only so much that can be covered up.

twinQuins

Whoah, I'm not advocating censorship or re-writing literature, films and whatnot to reflect current values or that anything should be covered up.

But it's also intellectually dishonest to say these things aren't racist now just because they were fair for their day. History shouldn't be changed - certainly not - but neither should it be excused.

pickarooney

twinQuins wrote: »

But it's also intellectually dishonest to say these things aren't racist now just because they were fair for their day. History shouldn't be changed - certainly not - but neither should it be excused.

How is it? If someone were to seek out a golliwog doll now in order to recreate a fondly innocent childhood memory, how is it intellectual honest to ascribe a racist ulterior motive to that?

In the off-chance that it's not have a look back over my post. Especially the part that says "stereotyped black facial structure".

I think that's a bit of a stretch, to be honest. They have completely circular heads, huge eyes and no noses. The big lips, granted, are in line with the stereotype.

old hippy

newport2 wrote: »

If nobody has a monopoly on deciding who is to be offended by what, how did you decide to state definitively in the sentence before what people are offended by?



I asked two black colleagues and came back to you with what they said. You ignored/disregarded their opinion because it wasn't what you wanted them to say.

No I didn't. You, however, ignored the opinions of my black friends.

Because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Over to you.

newport2

old hippy wrote: »

No I didn't. You, however, ignored the opinions of my black friends.

Because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Over to you.

I don't have an agenda. I stated in a previous post that I agree there is a racist element to golliwogs.

You were strongly arguing they were racist with other posters and "implored" people to go and ask our black colleagues to back up your arguement.

I agree with your black colleagues (even though I didn't ask for their opinion). You ignored the opinions of my black colleagues after asking what their opinion was.

twinQuins

pickarooney wrote: »

How is it? If someone were to seek out a golliwog doll now in order to recreate a fondly innocent childhood memory, how is it intellectual honest to ascribe a racist ulterior motive to that?

I think you're misreading me or I didn't make my point clear - I'm not saying it's intellectually dishonest to deny having a racist motivation in seeking it out. I'm not even saying people who like them as keepsakes from their childhood are racist, nothing like that.
I'm saying it's intellectually dishonest to deny that - today - the way in which golliwogs present a stereotype isn't racist. In the same way that 'eenie-meenie-minie' was fine for its day, it'd be a stretch to argue that it's inoffensive today.

You can like it while still understanding the history and symbolism behind it, essentially.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, to be honest. They have completely circular heads, huge eyes and no noses. The big lips, granted, are in line with the stereotype.

Well sure, the lips are in line with more recent stereotypes. While the rest of the caricature mightn't necessarily be malicious it's at the least predicated on a patronising kind of ignorance.
Like blackface, etc. it's presenting black people as nothing more than curiosities from far away which - again - was fine for a time when imperialist attitudes prevailed and people by and large didn't have much exposure to different ethnicities.

But this isn't the nineteenth century.

I wonder if part of it is people are afraid that if they admit it's a stereotype but also that they have fond memories of them from childhood they'll be called racists.
Which is not what I, at least, am arguing.

sbsquarepants

twinQuins wrote: »

A child's toy originating in a bygone era where black people were seen as subhuman. You're trying to create a false dichotomy here - yes, it's a child's toy but it's also based on stereotyped black facial structure.

I'm not trying to create anything. Where do you draw the line, should little boys not be allowed dress up as cowboys because it might offend native american indians. At the time cowboys shooting indians was deemed acceptable by society - no one thinks it is now, even the ones who buy their kids cowboy outfits and encourage them to shoot indians! It's just a game, not a stepping stone to genocide - and a golliwog is just a stuffed toy. Nothing more and nothing less.

old hippy

newport2 wrote: »

I don't have an agenda. I stated in a previous post that I agree there is a racist element to golliwogs.

You were strongly arguing they were racist with other posters and "implored" people to go and ask our black colleagues to back up your arguement.

I agree with your black colleagues (even though I didn't ask for their opinion). You ignored the opinions of my black colleagues after asking what their opinion was.

I agree that some black people don't attach a stigma to them. I also agree that some black people who grew up in the 70s and 80s would find them objectionable.

Fair enough?

newport2

old hippy wrote: »

Fair enough?

Fair enough

Nodin

pickarooney wrote: »

But the background in the given example is a child from Leeds dressing up as a footballer from Senegal he admired. How is it germane or honest to apply a background that has absolutely nothing to do with the scenario in question? do you think in this case that a) El Hadj Diouf is ignorant of US history and b) if you were to tell him all about it he would suddenly feel aggrieved by his fan's actions?

I find it highly disrepectful that you can suppose to know how anybody feels about a particualr issue and astoundingly arrogant to assume that anyone granted the benefit of your perspective would automatically agree with you.

Yet it seems to be ok to presume that they would not....

twinQuins

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not trying to create anything. Where do you draw the line, should little boys not be allowed dress up as cowboys because it might offend native american indians. At the time cowboys shooting indians was deemed acceptable by society - no one thinks it is now, even the ones who buy their kids cowboy outfits and encourage them to shoot indians! It's just a game, not a stepping stone to genocide - and a golliwog is just a stuffed toy. Nothing more and nothing less.

And I wouldn't suggest it is, unless this is another straw man of my argument.

In fact this:

At the time cowboys shooting indians was deemed acceptable by society - no one thinks it is now

Is what I'm saying. At the time, racial stereotypes against black people were considered acceptable but aren't now.
Nowhere have I said golliwogs should be banned.

The question of this thread is 'Are Golliwoggs racist?' Not 'Should Golliwoggs be banned?'

Now then, given that, would you agree that Golliwoggs embody a racial stereotype of black people? Because that's all I'm arguing.

Grand Moff Tarkin

It won't be long before someone comes out and says that the nursery rhyme Bah Bah Black Sheep is a racist.

0066ad

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

It won't be long before someone comes out and says that the nursery rhyme Bah Bah Black Sheep is a racist.

Already there https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/313119/Ssh-don-t-mention-black-in-Baa-Baa-Black-Sheep?comments=show-all

Nodin

0066ad wrote: »

Already there https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/313119/Ssh-don-t-mention-black-in-Baa-Baa-Black-Sheep?comments=show-all

thats shown to be a load of bollocks on numerous occcassions, yet - for some reason I can't imagine - that just fails to register with some people.
http://www.septicisle.info/2006/03/baa-baa-rainbow-bollocks.html

Henlars67

It's bah-bah Rainbow sheep in my nephew's school. Have heard him sing it loads of times.

Niles

Funny, I read some of the Blyton books in primary school (1990s) and would have seen goliwog teddies but I was well into my teens before I realised what they represented. I always assumed they were some kind of fanciful creature and never drew the connection with coloured people.

That said I would never have been exposed to racist language as a kid so slurs like 'wog' simply wouldn't have been in my vocabulary.

0066ad

Nodin wrote: »

thats shown to be a load of bollocks on numerous occcassions, yet - for some reason I can't imagine - that just fails to register with some people.
http://www.septicisle.info/2006/03/baa-baa-rainbow-bollocks.html

Did you even read the link? It has nothing to do with the link you posted.

I can't imagine that it just fails to register with some people to read the
god damn link before replying.

Nodin

0066ad wrote: »

Did you even read the link? It has nothing to do with the link you posted.

I can't imagine that it just fails to register with some people to read the
god damn link before replying.

Yes, it is to do with the link I posted.

0066ad

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, it is to do with the link I posted.

Now I know you didn't read it, the incident your bolloxing about happened
in 2006.

You thought you knew what was in the link without even opening it