...to be boycotting this wool shop?

[ilovemargaretatwood8931]

Good afternoon, this is the first thread I've ever started- please be as blunt and honest as you like!

OK, so there's a lovely yarn and needlecraft shop near my home. I used to visit it infrequently and spend too much on nice wools and needles (sometime knitter/ crocheter). A few months ago, some golliwogs appeared in the window display. I find these to be racist and a relic of the past that really isn't appropriate for a public shop display today.

I complained (very politely) about the dolls, and the staff member I spoke to was not keen to talk about it, as she was not the manager/ owner. So I wrote a note to the shop managers/ owners about the dolls, it was brief and respectful. I followed this up by going in there again a few weeks later, and of course the display was still in pride of place. It's still there, many months later.

I understand and appreciate that the shop (I imagine) has the right to have these toys in the window if they wish. But I just don't want to buy stuff from them anymore. I don't want my money to be supporting this unpleasant display of racist knitting goods.

Am I being unreasonable to not give this shop my custom any more?
WWYD?

The answer is that the shop is managed by an elderly person who probably had gollies as toys. I had one in the forties and gave him special love and attention as I considered him to be an orphan. However, I am really surprised that the owners are so unaware of changing ideas. Perhaps the owner knitted them from some old pattern and is particularly proud of her achievement. Whether I went there would depend on what her wool range consisted of and whether she was really knowledgeable and helpful. Happy knitting OP.

Feckless. Golligwogs are racist, ergo they are distasteful. Which bit of that are you finding it hard to comprehend?

I think YABU. Gollys were a much loved children's toy for generations. They were positively represented in the story books I read when I was younger (Enid Blyton etc). I always thought of them as a fictional character rather than a portrayal of black people.

As for them representing an era when black people were enslaved, they came into existence in the 1890s - so well after slavery had been abolished in the U.S.A.

I think you are reading far too much into this. Perhaps stop being serially offended and go and do good somewhere else.

alexa, what makes you think that op is serially offended? It's so easy and shows a lack of imagination to dismiss criticism or concern as 'serially offended'. And, are you saying that after slavery was abolished, there was no longer any racism? . Think about what the the colonial Britsh empire did to people in Africa and other Colonies? Not much good, or?

Perhaps stop being serially offended and go and do good somewhere else.
1)I am not serially offended. I do not like racism.
2)I suggest you read the links provided.
3)Making slavery illegal didn't stop it for quite a considerable period.
4) Jim Crow laws started around 1890 and were not removed until around the mid sixties.
5)Calling them Gollys rather than Golliwogs doesn't make them more acceptable.

Well, I wouldn't say 30 years is "well after." But substitute "greatly oppressed" or "having virtually no civil rights" for "enslaved" then.

People have the right to be offended by whatever they want to.

However what about amelioration? We are not the same society as the past we have moved on. Gollywogs are now seen as cute sweet nostalgic happy little characters that are well loved. They are not viewed negatively. So as society we should be pleased that they are moving forward in a positive way. Not trying to censor everyone because you see it different to others.

Tsoukalosy Because there are people still around who remember what happened in the sixties. Because, black children in school are still less likely to succeed than their white counterparts, because there are not enough black people in government, in the civil service, in the police force. Because I have scars from the National Front and I'm not black. Ameriolation is about social reform. When we have social reform, perhaps then we can discuss cute.

Gollywogs are now seen as cute sweet nostalgic happy little characters that are well loved. They are not viewed negatively.

Well, as I said before, they are more part of British culture than American, but come to where I am right now, in the state of Georgia in the US, and prominently display one. I think that you will find quite a different reaction.

Alexandpea, I'm certainly not serially offended, why would you think this?
I'm enjoying reading everyone's answers, and I find it a bit sad that you feel I should 'go and do good somewhere else' as I really enjoy the varied debate and camaraderie that is here on Mumsnet, and particularly like the way that people from many backgrounds and with often radically different views can interact. If we all went somewhere else, how would mumsnet happen?

when the black and white minstrel show was on,

Which causes me to ask - why is it then okay for the

NUS to ask people to do , " jazz hands" instead of clapping?

I agree that gollies are a no no , BTW.

tsouk, I had to look up amelioration- new word learned!

I'm really trying to see the point many have made about censorship, and also Charlie Hebdo etc, but still think Golly's are unpleasant and racist.
But would I want to stop someone owning one? I don't think so...

Is it similar that- I'm horrified that anyone might want to own a Nazi flag, but I can't see that I have the right to stop anyone from owning one. But I'm choosing not to give a shop that features Golly's my custom- a different thing to wanting to censor I think. (Just as I wouldn't want to give a shop that displayed a Nazi flag my custom.) I know that they are different things, but I'm struggling with the idea of censorship, and this, to me, is a good example of something else I'd not be a fan of.

I wish I could express myself better, it's a huge and complex issue, with so many personal opinions and viewpoints at the heart of it.

I don't understand what was wrong with moan's point, it seemed valid.

I really want to know why jazz hands are not offensive?

Can I ask all of those who think there is nothing wrong with this whether they find the term "wog" offensive? Even if you don't, is it a word you would use in relation to a black person? Where do you imagine it came from? Do you think if you had grown up being ostracised, treated as worthless, segregated, beaten and worse whilst people spat that term at you, you might find the dolls that led to that term being coined deeply offensive?

I think for all the bewildered it is worth reposting Dawndonna's link - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/golliwogs-vile-throwback-tory-mps

Chopper I totally get your point and agree with you - but some of those linked to are small businesses or even if well established, still need our custom! I do get why people choose to shop local as well.

On the subject of the gollies, I can't even begin to understand why anyone thinks that's acceptable any more. I can get why it didn't offend my parents' generation (born in the 1920s) but it does offend me. I used to work with black kids who'd ask me why there was no-one like them on TV, hardly any role models. I didn't put those words in their mouths - they felt that, strongly. And it's way better than it was then (the 1990s/early 2000s) so why this residual thing? I had a golly and I adored it as a child in the early 1960s and longed for the marmalade golly badges. But the world has moved on - thankfully. I genuinely don't get how people can be so divorced from reality, that they think it's even defensible.

I live near a tourist trap, and there are shops in town that sell gollies and golly ornaments, etc. I always feel, like the OP, like going in and complaining - except for they're shops for tourists, not me, and I have no reason to go into them. Given that this city has people from all over the world visit, I think it gives an appalling image of the UK.

Gollies, like Nigel Farage, belong in the 1930s.

State censorship is a separate, but related, issue. I'm American so I have a strongly ingrained cultural preference for free speech. I can find the Charlie Hebdo cartoons offensive and still disagree that they should be banned and certainly be appalled that people are killed for publishing them. I find racist depictions offensive, but in the US for the most part, they are protected speech. I also have the right to speak out against racist speech and to boycott those who engage in it.

Casually- 'I really want to know why jazz hands are not offensive?'- could you elaborate what you mean? Sorry, am trying to work it out, do you mean the term 'jazz hands' (is it a racist term- I didn't know), or the NUS request thing?

Oh dear How many of you were claiming to be Charlie a month or so ago?

You obviously don't understand what being Charlie is all about.

Offence is TAKEN by people who actively decide to take offence instead of ignoring things they disgree with and letting other poeple form their opinions.

Instead we have people on here telling other people to ring the police because they had seen a golly!

Seriously!

No wonder the police havent tracked down rapist gangs when they are expected to deal with hysterical phone calls from MNers about racist knitting materials

Was it St ives in Cambs? That's the last time I saw a window display.

Gollies are part of my hertiage as a person growing up in late C20th England. I am not going to permit a bunch of hysterical witchfinders to make me feel guilty about my childhood of collecting Robertson's badges and figures or watching the comfort my sister obtained from hugging her very large golly while her face was being stitched up after an accident.

Get a grip

Excellent points Seneca.
I've noticed that a lot of people who are (supposedly, and aggressively) pro free speech, can't abide it in reality- when someone disagrees with them, or says they believe something is racist. There's a huge difference between saying that you think that a piece of writing or a picture (for example) is racist/ bad/ wrong and saying that it should not have been written/ drawn/ published.

They're a part of mine, too, WetAugust. I'm an adult who knows their background now, however, so I'm not going to defend the rights of playgroup leaders to read Little Black Sambo at storytime these days or look at public displays featuring Gollywogs without wondering what point the displayer is trying to make.

Casually- 'I really want to know why jazz hands are not offensive?'- could you elaborate what you mean? Sorry, am trying to work it out, do you mean the term 'jazz hands' (is it a racist term- I didn't know), or the NUS request thing?

Last week the NUS Womans Conference requested that people did not clap to show their appreciation, as the noise could cause anxiety in some people. Instead they asked for those who wished to show appreciation to "use jazz hands".

This caused a Twitter storm as some pointed out to them that "jazz hands" were ethnically questionable due to their use by the ow discredited practise of the Black and Whote Minstrels.

Here's a link to the whole sorry business

oxfordstudent.com/2015/03/25/jazz-hands-clapping-twitter-trolls-the-unsuccessful-derailing-of-nus-womens-conference/

I'm going to risk outing myself on Mumsnet to show you the cake stand that my sister bought me for my birthday a few years ago. Yup, we're now dressing golliwogs up as other ethnic groups.

This one is purely for home use - the PTA won't appreciate it I suspect.

making your own stand based on your beliefs rather than just running off to mobilize the pitchforks and flaming torches which is what usually gets my back up when people are offended by something or other.

So why even bother to come onto MN in the first place with it all? Because she's done exactly what you object to !!