To bin the old-fashioned racist doll? *title tweaked by MNHQ*

[MrsBonnie]

Please excuse the offensive term.

My daughter was gifted a very old doll from my husband’s great aunt. Said aunt is in her 80s now and said that the doll held special memories and she wanted DD to have it.

I don’t want to have the doll in the house, but don’t want to offend the aunt by saying we don’t want it. She does come round from time to time, so there’s a risk she’d enquire after it if she was round. WWYD?

@CatsArePeopleToo

I'd like to think they will have no value at all especially in the future when hopefully the stigma attached to owning one will be a deterrent if not being a racist alone isn't reason enough.

We may see swastikas as offensive, but antiques are valuable.

Like the doll, swastikas are part of history. History should never be forgotten or wiped out, even more so for the bad parts. Future generations need to learn from past mistakes, to ensure no repeat

Whammy I've seen that argument for keeping them in circulation many times in this thread, alongside suggestions of rocking up to the local museum to offload onto them (mortifying).
Does being a relic of history we simply need to keep in existence instead of you know, having photographic evidence of, literature and drawings of, mean that they should hold great value and become coveted items due to being worth so much money? They should all go in the bin.

I still have a copy of Little Black Sambo, which I and my DC loved. The title character is portrayed as a clever and resourceful little Indian boy who outwits a gang of man-eating tigers and turns them into ghee for making pancakes, which he then enjoys eating with his family.
The author, Helen Bannerman, was a Scotswoman who lived in India with her husband, a doctor in the Indian medical service. She wrote the story about a little Indian boy for British children to read.
I can’t see how it is remotely offensive - Sambo is a brave and clever role model, rather than anything negative. I think the name may have been misappropriated by racists and used incorrectly as a term for Africans, but that is hardly the author’s fault.
And my generation all loved our gollies as kids. I was v jealous of my friend’s lovely plush golly. We collected the golly badges from Robertson’s jam too. The only negative golly reference I can recall is Enid Blyton casting them as villains in the Noddy books, along with goblins.
Nowadays people seem obsessed with virtue signalling and condemn everything as racist, sexist, transphobic or whatever. OP’s daughter, if left in peace, would just have loved and cuddled her golly as we did, without any political subtext.
Maybe you could let her have her childhood, and her toys, for a few more innocent years before subjecting her to the full political correctness rant?

I grew up in the 70s.
As others have said, gollies were normal and not seen as racist (by the people I knew) at the time.
But this is because:

1. We were children, and neither we nor the adults knew or understood to origins of the caricature. Now we do, knowing it's origins should bring shock and distress and make us want to not have Gollies.
2. The racist element was outside of our lived experience, so we didn't relate to it, so we ignored it (or more accurately didn't consider it at all) I bet if you asked Lenny Henry et al (as I mentioned up thread) they would have been 100% aware of the racist element and distressed by it. Again, once we realise, that should make us want to not own gollies.

I see this 'lived experienced' a lot on mn.
On any thread, if something is out of our experience, people dismiss it and say that it doesn't matter or it isn't that important etc.

Just as an example, my son has red hair. Threads about ginger hair will have some people saying - my ds was bullied due to red hair. Others will say - Oh no, my dd has never had any negative experiences, so we don't think there is really a problem with red hair and bullying in UK, as we haven't experienced it.
Doesn't matter how many times other people say that their lived experience is that bullying is alive and well, those for whom it isn't won't acknowlegde it.

We as a nation are getting worse at seeing and understanding other people's point sof view.

@SqidgeBum I don't know if you are still reading this thread but there's a very good chance a war museum (maybe in Germany) would be very interested in that book. It's a very valuable piece of war history (one sold to a private collector for £17,000 in 2017) Hitler was very reluctant to sign anything which is what makes it so rare

I am quite dubious about the idea that holding onto these racist dolls is a positive way to remember the negatives of the past. Somehow people seem to be suggesting that it is a noble thing to do, that otherwise we (collectively) might forget how terrible the dolls were and by extension how pervasive and overpowering racism is. Honestly, that is one of the most convoluted and absurd arguments I have ever encountered.

I am quite certain that enough of these vile objects already exist in the world (not to mention the fact that they continue to be produced). They are in no danger of being forgotten. Their history is well documented. An individual who keeps such a doll in their loft is not carrying out a virtuous deed. They are just perpetuating the existence of yet one more example of overt racism. And don't even get me started on the cynicism of trying to profit from selling the horrible thing.

@Babdoc
Nowadays people seem obsessed with virtue signalling and condemn everything as racist, sexist, transphobic or whatever. OP’s daughter, if left in peace, would just have loved and cuddled her golly as we did, without any political subtext

Why is it virtue signalling to highlight racism?
Should we all just shut up and let it run unchecked and live in ignorance instead, pretend it isn't there?
Surely that's just as bad as being racist

I would not say there is a need to hold on to things to remember, exactly. But I would say that making objects taboo isn't really effective or useful in terms of reducing racism. Many things like that naturally die out as they fall out of favour or don't it in with the way people think. Most people don't go out to buy them or write stories about them. Even if you go buy a new Noddy book, they have been modified so there are no Gollies, only goblins.

That's not quite the same though as saying an old instances of these things, which will become increasingly rare as time goes on anyway, need to be destroyed.

There is a kind of magical thinking going on if people imagine that somehow they will infect any children that come across them with racism, or they can destroy racism by destroying the dolls. Children don't become racist because they see an old doll, they become racist because of the way they are taught to think about people, or especially the way they see others treat people.

What is certainly true though is if an elderly relative gives a child a gift of a toy they themselves cherished, and finds out that it was destroyed, or that she herself is thought to be a racist old hag, she'll be pretty deeply hurt.

To add, kind of makes you (general you) racist by default as you keep insisting "PC gawn mad" and "nothing to see here" when there clearly is something to see.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that binning a doll will magically eradicate racism. That would indeed be a ridiculous suggestion.

Children don't become racist because they see an old doll, they become racist because of the way they are taught to think about people, or especially the way they see others treat people.

And one way that racism takes hold is through the casual, everyday acceptance of racist objects and tropes. The dolls themselves were a small part of that. I linked to an article above in which the writer argues persuasively that marketing such objects to children is particularly insidious, because it becomes part of their socialisation about race. A small part, no doubt. But it all adds up.

What is certainly true though is if an elderly relative gives a child a gift of a toy they themselves cherished, and finds out that it was destroyed, or that she herself is thought to be a racist old hag, she'll be pretty deeply hurt.

There are all sorts of ways to handle this situation sensitively but without perpetuating racism. I for one wouldn't have such an object in my house. Nor would I tell an elderly relative that she was "a racist old hag." Fortunately, my elderly relatives would reject such objects themselves, so I am unlikely to find myself in a comparable scenario. Nevertheless, I can imagine how one might navigate it with sensitivity and tact.

@DolphinsAndNemesis

I haven't seen anyone suggest that binning a doll will magically eradicate racism. That would indeed be a ridiculous suggestion.

Children don't become racist because they see an old doll, they become racist because of the way they are taught to think about people, or especially the way they see others treat people.

And one way that racism takes hold is through the casual, everyday acceptance of racist objects and tropes. The dolls themselves were a small part of that. I linked to an article above in which the writer argues persuasively that marketing such objects to children is particularly insidious, because it becomes part of their socialisation about race. A small part, no doubt. But it all adds up.

What is certainly true though is if an elderly relative gives a child a gift of a toy they themselves cherished, and finds out that it was destroyed, or that she herself is thought to be a racist old hag, she'll be pretty deeply hurt.

There are all sorts of ways to handle this situation sensitively but without perpetuating racism. I for one wouldn't have such an object in my house. Nor would I tell an elderly relative that she was "a racist old hag." Fortunately, my elderly relatives would reject such objects themselves, so I am unlikely to find myself in a comparable scenario. Nevertheless, I can imagine how one might navigate it with sensitivity and tact.

I think it's very much the implication, and it's present in a lot of the way we talk about trying to stop racism. We essentially scapegoat, or imbue words and objects with a kind of signiicance that is beyond what they actually hold.

The dolls are a good example, they are just dolls. They only become racist when contextualised. An object or a word is rarely if ever intrinsically racist, it can't be. The loss of that context is already well on it's way, not many children today would be able to relate to that context because they've had little or no exposure to those tropes.

Should they come across one in an attic or an old poster or whatever, it doesn't communicate anything unless they are old enough to have learned about the historical meaning - someone is likely to have to explain what it is, assuming they are old enough to understand.

Think of all the items we have around that a few generations ago, or 500 years ago, had different meanings or communicated ideas and values. The objects themselves don't function to do that now because the exist as historical objects (often quite interesting ones to us.) We don't worry they are going to transfer the ideas they represented to the people who had them to us, all without us realising it. Or even to our kids.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that racism is over, I am saying those particular manifestations and images are irrelevant and often pretty alien to people who aren't at least middle aged now.

I think it's very much the implication, and it's present in a lot of the way we talk about trying to stop racism. We essentially scapegoat, or imbue words and objects with a kind of signiicance that is beyond what they actually hold.

The dolls are a good example, they are just dolls. They only become racist when contextualised. An object or a word is rarely if ever intrinsically racist, it can't be. The loss of that context is already well on it's way, not many children today would be able to relate to that context because they've had little or no exposure to those tropes.

I fundamentally disagree. These objects aren't just dolls and they never were. They were created specifically as racist caricatures, within a shameful racist tradition. They can't be divorced from that context.

@Babdoc

I still have a copy of Little Black Sambo, which I and my DC loved. The title character is portrayed as a clever and resourceful little Indian boy who outwits a gang of man-eating tigers and turns them into ghee for making pancakes, which he then enjoys eating with his family. The author, Helen Bannerman, was a Scotswoman who lived in India with her husband, a doctor in the Indian medical service. She wrote the story about a little Indian boy for British children to read. I can’t see how it is remotely offensive - Sambo is a brave and clever role model, rather than anything negative. I think the name may have been misappropriated by racists and used incorrectly as a term for Africans, but that is hardly the author’s fault. And my generation all loved our gollies as kids. I was v jealous of my friend’s lovely plush golly. We collected the golly badges from Robertson’s jam too. The only negative golly reference I can recall is Enid Blyton casting them as villains in the Noddy books, along with goblins. Nowadays people seem obsessed with virtue signalling and condemn everything as racist, sexist, transphobic or whatever. OP’s daughter, if left in peace, would just have loved and cuddled her golly as we did, without any political subtext. Maybe you could let her have her childhood, and her toys, for a few more innocent years before subjecting her to the full political correctness rant?

Fucking ridiculous. The only negative thing you could find was Enid Blyton casting them as villains? Have you bothered to read the thread? They were created as a negative depiction of black people. What an arse

Maybe you could let her have her childhood, and her toys, for a few more innocent years before subjecting her to the full political correctness rant?

& How will she do that, Batshittery? Do you think she can extol the virtues of the doll, put it on display, even let her play with it alongside her friends? As according to you it's all good, isn't it? Is your book on display? Do you faux-gush over it as you have in your decidedly ludicrous post?

You're yet another that if you had that doll, or your fantasy book even, would hide it away lest you shit themself as being outed like the racist you are.

Weird obsession with ugly caricatures aside...

Read up about the British Raj. Hardly fun and games, was it? At least, not for young Indian freedom fighters who were put to death.

Fuck your storybook

@DeeCeeCherry I think you have confused me with Babdoc. I was quoting their post

@DeeCeeCherry That was Babdocs post, not Batshittery's I think - batshitttery was calling out Babdoc's comment too by quoting it

Cross posted

Thank you Quaagars As a black woman, I could never agree to the shit that was posted

I can't stand the phrase "politically correct^ and the way it is thrown around to justify blatant inhumanity.

Gollies are about as racist as an inanimate object can be, along with swastikas. Is it so hard to accept that finally society is waking up to the continued abuse caused by continuing to treat these items as a valid option.

My kids wouldn't bring one in to the house. Not because they look like black people, they don't, but they do look like B&W minstrels, which is a white man's extreme caricature of how they saw black people. They are a historical item which should incite shame. They are shameful. Inhumane.

Nowadays people seem obsessed with virtue signalling and condemn everything as racist, sexist, transphobic or whatever. OP’s daughter, if left in peace, would just have loved and cuddled her golly as we did, without any political subtext

Butter wouldn’t melt bullshit, Babcock.

steppemum

We as a nation are getting worse at seeing and understanding other people's points of view.

This has to be the most intelligent and observant point on here.

@MrsBonnie

I like the idea of keeping it hidden in the loft. But also don’t want to be racist just by having it in the house... how sad that it’s even a thing.

Stop worrying about the opinion of others OP. It is a family heirloom and in 100 years or so could be of considerable interest to social historians.

I would have told her that we couldn't accept it and why.
There is no way I could have such a thing in my house or around my DC.