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.

Cat where can I buy really GOOD Welsh cakes? Not the Braces shite that aren't worthy of the name. The proper tasty ones that I eat 24 at a time and end up in a coma.

My dad has got the best of Bob Marley record so I think that makes me an unimpeachable authority on all aspects of Jamaican culture.

I'm surprised there are people saying gollywogs were acceptable in the 70s so should still be acceptable today. In the 70s it was "OK" for pubs to have signs saying "No Blacks"

Sorry posted too soon.

Gollywogs were only "acceptable" in the past because white people in general viewed black people as inferior and didn't care about their feelings, or about them as people at all.

LordBrightside

I think you have an interesting point about people getting offended because they want to maintain an image. Faux-offence is stock in trade for the political class these days, certainly Cameron is a master of being offended by things when he clearly doesn't give a sh*t about anyone who isn't like him.

However, there are a couple of points I'd raise. Firstly, I think that, as a general rule, it's better to live in a society where people want to be seen as non-racist than to live in a society where people are quite happy to be racist. PC may have "gone mad", but better that than racism gone mad, as was the case until very recently. Secondly, I think we still underestimate just how much of our predjudices go unrecognised because they're largely unconscious. Casual racism and causal sexism still play a part in our society (the latter particularly), and if people don't make an effort to become offended on the behalf of those who are on the receiving end of prejudice, then that prejudice will go unchallenged.

Having said that, it is important to point out where you think things have gone to far. The "we musn't be prejudiced as a society" argument is certainly capable of becoming a powerful weapon for purportedly apolitical groups who actually have a serious political agenda. Some religious movements and the more militant part of the trans-women's movement are both in this category, I'd suggest. They weild the "you are bigoted" stick as a way of gaining rights they probably shouldn't (in my opinion) be entitled to. The desire you mention for some people to appear to be unpredjudiced gives these groups a foot in the door.

I think a useful tool in any situation like this is to try swapping social groups in and out as a thought experiment. So, if we had a "funny" character that, say, highlighted and exaggerated the facial differences of Down's Syndrome children to sell jam we would all be horrified. If a political leader said women should not be able to have abortions on the basis of a dream he or she had had, they would be ridiculed. If childless men said they should be allowed into the toddler soft play area because they identified with children rather than adults they would not get even the slightest chance of success.

And the pp comparing gollywogs in people's homes to nazi memorabilia in museums. Don't you know that homes and museums are completely different things?

Yes, Manchot, they are different things. That's rather the point.

Intheprocess, thanks for that interesting and insightful contribution. Reading it and thinking it through I reckon we are on the same page. Can't disagree with any of it.

The Baby Born dolls were mentioned upthread.

Interestingly, as a childminder, I've been advised not to buy the black version because of the same point made earlier on the thread against gollywogs: that they are white dolls coloured black and some may find this offensive.
I do have ethnically correct dolls because I care for black children and don't want to embarrass or offend.

Are the Baby Born black dolls offensive, do you think?

A gollywog is NOT a white doll coloured black. You do not get white gollywogs. That is the difference.

I think that's a whole different level of sensitivity Tanith

I'm repeating what someone said earlier on the thread about them being caricatures of minstrels - white people coloured up black.

Why is it different?

Isn't it a similiar situation to how gollywogs were perceived in the 70s? A few informed people refused to have anything to do with them while the rest regarded them as toys.

Defamation and "criminal" defamation, no less?

Well, this is new. And I thought that there was no way that this thread could surpass the previous 107! (Thanks for checking that MistressDeeCee)

'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.

No, Lord, you said gollywogs are offensive to some, not that they are offensive to you.

You lack the courage of your conviction and choose to make vague insinuations of people overdoing their objections, instead of presenting a clear arguments. Your statements lack any substance.

Tanith there are links near the start of the thread that explain the history, the distorted, exaggerated features, the intent of the original author etc

Yes, I know. I read them.

"you object to gollywogs being deemed offensive.'

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

No, Lord, you said gollywogs are offensive to some, not that they are offensive to you."

You've lost me.

"You lack the courage of your conviction and choose to make vague insinuations of people overdoing their objections, instead of presenting a clear arguments. "

I merely offered my opinion. There is no requirement on me to convince you of it's merits.

There is no requirement on me to convince you of it's merits.
In which case why get involved at all? It's a discussion.

"In which case why get involved at all? It's a discussion."

I can't answer this. It doesn't make sense to me.

I merely offered my opinion. There is no requirement on me to convince you of it's merits.

Funny, LB, that you're offended by posters answering OP's questions on why they find gollywogs offensive.

I'm not asking you to convince me. I don't think you could, because you haven't offered an opinion. I suspect you also see racism as an insignificant force in society.

I am sorry if this thread upset anyone (but would be stunned if it did) but i hope people saw it as a thread discussing racism rather than a racist thread.

It did upset me. Not because I thought that was your intention LEM, but because the constant need to go over the same topics while people say they have no idea and express opinions that everyone is making too much of this, is very dispiriting. So while black people continue to experience often grave and damaging racism, white people continue to argue about whether it exists.

I'm not criticising you for asking the question. Your having to ask the question points up the massive gulf between our experiences, and the fact that the gulf still exists makes me feel tired and sad.

Golliwogs are a racist caricature and always were, irrespective of whether the first golliwog character was a hero or not. Yes, black people did and do get called golliwog (very often, in my case). That means the word and the image tend to have strong negative connotations that come flooding back when the topic is mentioned.

Last time I saw golliwogs in a souvenir shop, I turned from staring at the display to find the two women behind the till smirking at me and murmuring to each other. They were clearly enjoying my shock and annoyance at seeing their golliwog display. That's my experience of the golliwog now: the great majority of people know that it is offensive, even if they don't know the history (though anyone over the age of 40 will probably be able to remember the term being used in a perjorative way). However, they feel able to bring back the golliwog in a purportedly 'non-racist' way as some sort of strike against 'political correctness'.

Golliwogs aren't serious per se. They are a sort of canary in the mine though. I worry that if we tolerate this, what will our children be in for next?

I am sorry Myfavouriteclinton for upsetting you. What you describe is awful, how rude of those women. As a child (but not so much now these days) people used to call my mum a golliwog or wog (and worse), this is due to a medical condition that makes her appear black (to varying degrees depending on the time of year and or level of medication she is on) So i have a level of understanding at how hurtful it is. I think i worded my title and probably my OP quite badly to be fair because of course there is an issue, what i didn't know, but now have more of an understanding is whether the issue was inherent or something that had been used by not very nice people to refer to people with dark skin.

I have defriended several people on FB over this ridiculous bring back the golly campaign that seems to have been started by Britian first.

I do think that it is useful to discuss racism though and not brush it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist, because sadly it does.