Banning golliwogs?

[Dreamgal]

After watching a C4 programme on "PC gone mad" last night, I spotted a link to a Facebook video - see link below which gives 3 key reasons. Not sure how I feel about actually banning golliwogs (as that's censorship), but they do seem to bring out the worst in some factions of our society.

www.facebook.com/Gollytots/videos/1598189463544441

There are also people in this country whose reading ability does prevent reading about the background of this doll bert.

Gazelda just keep them in the box and don't feel guilty

Did anyone see the DUtch welcome to trump video (it's on you tube ) it's hilarious and they mention black Peter (the Dutch equivalent of a golly ) - so when the Dutch finally agree that Peter is a disgrace I think we can kill our Gollys

Why, Bert ?

Chloe84: 3 reasons for banning golliwogs. Like the title of the thread suggested

Gollies are awful but you seem to have glossed over the 4th "reason" - that a company selling pastel coloured toys called "Gollytots" (ffs, talk about missing the point) can sell its toys.

Are you connected with this company OP?

No one is saying you're racist for having once played happily with a golliwog as a child. No one is saying your parents are racist for having procured it for you back in the day.

But times change. Attitudes change. We're in 2017 now, now 1977. People become more clued up about the origins of things they previously took for granted. People realise that an "innocent toy" has a sinister history and choose to allow a doll based on a racial caricature to fall out of favour.

I don't believe in banning things. But neither do I believe in letting things go unchallenged. So people should be free to buy a golliwog, and if I see them with it I should be free to ask if they know its history. And if they do, either before or after I explain it, and they still feel it's okay to buy one, to keep that old racial stereotype circulating, than I'm free to judge them as racist.

That's not censorship. That's consequences.

Did anyone see the DUtch welcome to trump video (it's on you tube ) it's hilarious and they mention black Peter (the Dutch equivalent of a golly ) - so when the Dutch finally agree that Peter is a disgrace I think we can kill our Gollys

1. They are Golliwogs.
2. Because somewhere else is racist doesn't mean we have to be too.
3. The Dutch are actually trying to change the look of Black Pete. 4)Try this
4. The Dutch gave us Apartheid.

Whilst on the subject, has anyone considered the Tate and Tate Modern?
Where did the money originally come from?

The hint is sugar.

When you say "While we're on the subject" I presume you mean " On an entirely different different subject"............

Sigh, not this again, well, I suppose I ought to be offended as I am mixed race, but I'm not, I own a large golliwog myself and, a few years ago they sold a range of sizes in our local post office! I am sure the usual hand wringing liberals will come on and say that "I don't understand", poor ignorant "darkie", like they usually do - but really, I don't care: there are racists about, of course, golliwogs don;t make more racists and not having them would not result in fewer.

Ffs

OurBlanche, being patronising to people of other races is a form of racism. People are patronising because they believe they are better than those they are patronising in some way.

For example, if I patronise a young person by saying "when you're my age, you will understand", I am telling them I am more knowledgable than them - that my knowledge is superior to theirs.

So you can't say that golliwogs are "patronising, but not racist", because it is, in this instance, the same thing.

Except I didn't say that Hardcore

I really don't think people buy golliwogs because they are racist....They buy them because they love them. They are a very lovely cuddly toy. I'm trying to picture the scene where people go to markets and shops and think "I'm a racist, I must have a gollywog". They are not ugly, they are lovely. To me they are just like a ragdoll....Wouldn't enter my head that they were racist.

Society has changed. The golliwog has grown in repute, he now stands for something his originator coudn't have foreseen... after all, her patronising view was that he was "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome" - so not human, perhaps! But he turned out to be a really jolly, helpful chap.

If this was the originator's view, it was incredibly racist. A colonial, patronising kind of racism is still racism, and helps to build an atmosphere where other kinds of more obvious racism are condoned.

We have seen examples of this kind of effect, recently, where in the light of the US Republican administration's Muslim travel ban, racist people in the US have felt emboldened to carry out racist attacks.

Just because Upton didn't mean to be racist doesn't mean that she wasn't, or that it wasn't harmful.

Mumzy sometimes I think we have to accept that not everything is about us as individuals.
There is a consensus about various things, and the golliwog being recognised as a racist symbol has become one of those things. Of course not everyone agrees, there will never be 100% agreement on anything.

Dawn - I hate Black Peter and I hate golly wogs - you seem have misread my post ! Both vile both need to stop

MumzyPops

Considering you were arguing insistently on another thread that the OP shouldn't report a boy to his teacher for saying the word 'nigger' to a mixed race boy at school, I really wonder if you find anything racist when it relates to minorities. Must be lovely living in your head.

And just because I typed up what his originator said/thought, according to many sites found by Google, doesn't mean I agree with her.

You really do need to take a post in its entirety, Focussing on pieces of one can be very misleading, robs the post of its original intent!

Watch "Roots" on Bbc4 if you never saw the original. You'll see what trivialising and "just having a bit of harmless fun" means.

I should have added that the next sentence I typed, which you chose not to include, was a comment that such attitudes were, after all, what slavery was based on!

You could have taken that as a soundbite and had a very different, much more accurate idea, of what I had posted!!

Chloe84. I didn't insist she should tell the teacher.....Read the thread...I clearly said it would be a good idea. What I was insisting on was that I had heard kids have been expelled for saying that horrible word....You and others didn't believe me but other posters were able to prove they knew of cases too. you are a bit confused dear.

Shouldn't not should

Chloe84....My point was they didn't know which child had said it for sure.....I said something like a talk with the whole class would be good and then went on to say that kids have been expelled for same....A point you strangely argued the point over (I've no idea why). You even asked me what my agenda was (again, I've no idea why) when I had simply said I'd heard of kids being expelled for same. I don't know what agenda you would even think I had?

Id be against a ban. I dont think people who buy them are racist. Perhaps willing to overlook the history of that particular toy (but i assume that they believe/feel that that history plays no part in their current life and has no bearing/is separate on how they feel towards the toy/black people). That doesnt make them racist, at worst shortsighted. Having suffered racism and racist remarks I dont believe that golliwogs were at the root core or even in the same ballpark as the racist people i have encountered.

And chloe84, nobody at all on that thread said that horrible word isn't racist. Nobody.