to ask what the issue is with golliwogs

[TheoriginalLEM]

not a goady thread. i know they are racist and idiots from Britain first are posting pictures on Facebook. I just wondered what the history is?

i remember them from the 70s and i remember feeling uncomfortable with them then.

The golliwog undoubtedly has racist roots but inanimate objects are not in and of themselves "racist". People are.

You're being deliberately obtuse. People create racist objects as symbols of their derogatory perceptions of those they deem to be 'lesser' or 'inferior'. Gollywogs didn't knit themselves, did they?

I know that I personally can look at a golliwog and endure the existence of golliwogs in history without turning in to a huge fat steaming racist and I'm sure everyone else can too.

If the gollywog is not a caricature of your race, then I can see why you can endure it. It's easy for you.

Lord Brightside, can I appeal to your better nature, we are British, we are meant to be polite decent folk so if that includes not displaying items that many people find racist its probably worth it. No need to deny they ever existed, but them in a museum if you are interested.

"You're being deliberately obtuse."

No, I'm not. This is my view, and if you find it to be obtuse that is not because of anything deliberate on my part.

"If the gollywog is not a caricature of your race, then I can see why you can endure it. It's easy for you."

And you know what of my race?

"we are meant to be polite decent folk so if that includes not displaying items that many people find racist its probably worth it. No need to deny they ever existed, but them in a museum if you are interested."

Yeah, I don't own any golliwogs and if I did I wouldn't have them in a display case in my front room. But other people can display what they like in their own houses surely?

"If the gollywog is not a caricature of your race, then I can see why you can endure it. It's easy for you."

THANK YOU Leelu

Offendedness is a subjective matter, so I wouldn't dream of saying that golliwogs are not offensive. They are to some people. But there are degrees of offence and I think some people really overdo it on this issue in order to project an image about themselves. I think that's crass, cynical and self-serving.

I don't know who or what you are referring to. You're making vague accusations which I can only assume means you object to gollywogs being deemed offensive. They clearly are not offensive to you.

So what is your race, LB?

And while you're at it, it would be good to read your response to my last question.

And you know what of my race?

Nothing, which you can infer from my post. I said 'IF the gollywog is not a caricature of your race.'

Offendedness is a subjective matter, so I wouldn't dream of saying that golliwogs are not offensive. They are to some people. But there are degrees of offence and I think some people really overdo it on this issue in order to project an image about themselves. I think that's crass, cynical and self-serving.
This is a hackneyed argument used to shut down those that have genuine objections. The person putting forward this sort of argument thinks they are the better person for not saying anything, that they are somehow superior and can rise above such 'self serving' behaviours. Well, believe it or not, some people do object, genuinely. I object to the fact that they are still sold, and to the fact that people defend that. I object to the fact that people like you put me in a position whereby I feel the need to justify why they should not be sold. I object to being dismissed by the above argument.

Eminado

Glad my posts make sense to some

There's an interesting discussion here, worth clicking on the various hyperlinks etc to consider all views.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/golliwog-shetland

Well said, Dawn

I remember that piece, Asper. Just re-read and have pasted the most striking sentence for me below. Some posters on this thread seem to be in the 'sentimental fugue state' described.

'The most insidious feature of these images is that they were intended for consumption by children, part of their socialisation into the adult world of race relations. It is because of this that many apologists for those racist images find it convenient to lapse into sentimental fugue state, in which history is obliterated."'

Great post Dawn

"I can only assume means you object to gollywogs being deemed offensive. "

A breathtaking post. In my post which you quotes, I have said exactly the opposite.

"So what is your race, LB?"

I refuse to say. The colour of my skin is irrelevant, and I won't allow my opinions to be viewed through the prism of race.

"Such as? Give an example. Especially of the fake."

I'll consider doing this. What's in it for me?

"This is a hackneyed argument used to shut down those that have genuine objections."

No, you are perfectly entitled to you objections. I however don't agree with your objections and won't be bound by them, nor will I see others bound by them.

You'll just need to accept that I have a different view and that your objections aren't sacrosanct.

Ah lord Brightside, I have seen you refuse to state whether you are male or female on other threads. I for one am quite happy for anyone round here to know I am white and female for what its worth. You're not ashamed of your roots surely?

"Ah lord Brightside, I have seen you refuse to state whether you are male or female on other threads. I for one am quite happy for anyone round here to know I am white and female for what its worth. You're not ashamed of your roots surely?"

That's your choice to share that information. I am entitled to the same choice, am I not?

In my opinion it's not appropriate to ask someone online what colour their skin is or what shape their genitals are.

I accept that you have a different view. I just objected to the hackneyed argument you used to support said view.

It is not however a view that golliwogs are racist. It's an historical fact.

"I accept that you have a different view. I just objected to the hackneyed argument you used to support said view.
It is not however a view that golliwogs are racist. It's an historical fact."

Fine. I disagree with your simplistic assertion that golliwogs are racist. They have an association with historic racism, I'll certainly say that.

It's not racist to call a golliwog toy by its proper name. If anything, it's an indicator of being racist (or at best, a bit dim) to twee it up with silly cutesy names like golly dolly or golly, and blatantly ignore the racist connotations of the toy itself. It's definitely racist to call a person a golliwog, just for the avoidance of doubt.

It does seem to be quite a widely-spread myth that dropping the 'wog' bit of the name sanitises the object. I'd be really interested to know where it came from, or how it took hold.

And dawndonnaagain, you should accept that my view, by its mere existence, does not shut down not seek to shut down your view, as you asserted.