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?

@VinylDetective

Why? It was a British colony

With a black population of over 90%. You’re not even slightly confused so why the silly face?

It’s a confused face, not a silly one.

@Plussizejumpsuit

This is a bit of a tangent.. My partner has a few toys from childhood one is a knitted black doll. It's not one of those it's just a black doll. His mum is very politically active and used to take him to womad and do loads of community stuff as a kid I think. I think the doll came from a stall at womad. When I first saw it I was like wtf is that but then realised there's a difference.

It is important to have races represented in toys. My niece's are mixed race and I've notice still most of her dolls and little people figures a white. Perhaps refuse the doll and make sure your daughter sees things and has toys which show lots of races.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you, of course dolls should represent a range of ethnicities, have different skin shades, hair types etc , that isn’t the issue. The issue is the particular nastiness and racism the gollywog embodies and was designed to promote. Deliberately stereotypically exaggerated facial features and a name that manages to have embraced two racial slurs. It is a masterpiece of racist marketing.

For every person claiming they didn’t know it was used as a racist slur and to illustrate racist views I can guarantee there were fifty more people who knew full well it was.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. I have never met a racist, even the most extreme awful racist, who thinks their own views are racist. They always just think they are right and there's nothing racist about them. Look at Nigel Farage.

Or Donald Trump

@goldfinchfan

It is untrue to say that these dolls were always meant to be offensive.

Back in the 1950's it was just a doll.

we had no idea it was a negative representation of a black person. I was 4 or 5 years old.

However I don't think anything excuses the B & W Minstrals........I hated them even as a child I could see it wasn't ok.

But a doll is an object of love to a child. Not the same thing at all.

Of course a five year old in the fifties wouldn’t see their golliwog as a racist toy. At least, a white child wouldn’t, not sure about a black child.

But the people who produced and marketed golliwogs certainly knew that what they were manufacturing were based on offensive stereotypes that mocked and demeaned back people.

[quote DolphinsAndNemesis]These threads crop up on MN all the time. The responses are predictable. We tend to see a collection of the following sorts of posts:

1. "My mum/gran/auntie had a collection of these dolls. She loved them and was the least racist person ever. Maybe they are racist now but they weren't back then."

(Your relative may have been a very nice person and may have been ignorant of the racism inherent in these dolls. That doesn't erase the fact that they were always racist caricatures.)

1. "I had a doll like this when I was a child and I loved it! I had no idea it was racist."

(You were a child. If no one explained how problematic the doll was, of course you didn't know. But you're not a child anymore. The doll was racist then and it's racist now. Childhood ignorance is no excuse for adult attitudes.)

1. "It's PC gone mad!"

(No commentary necessary for such an asinine perspective.)

1. And then there are the wide-eyed, disingenuous posters with their faux naif reactions. "Whatever do you mean, racist?"

(An eyeroll is the only reaction I can muster in response to such nonsense.)

For anyone who genuinely is ignorant of the issues involved, here is an article from 2012 that explains some of them:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/golliwogs-vile-throwback-tory-mps[/quote]
Yes. And it's amazing how many MNetters own these dolls.

I wouldn't bin it. There's no point pretending such items never existed- those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Put it away and use it to start a conversation when your DD is older.

Can we just get to a point were we please just ignore the faux naive shite on these threads please?

The only and last explanation to be given on the subject.

'The Golliwogg was based on a Black minstrel doll that Upton had played with as a small child in New York. The then-nameless "Negro minstrel doll" was treated roughly by the Upton children. Upton reminiscenced: "Seated upon a flowerpot in the garden, his kindly face was a target for rubber balls..., the game being to knock him over backwards. It pains me now to think of those little rag legs flying ignominiously over his head, yet that was a long time ago, and before he had become a personality.... We knew he was ugly!" (Johnson).

Upton's Golliwogg character, like the rag doll which inspired it, was ugly. He was often drawn with paws instead of hands and feet. He had a coal black face, thick lips, wide eyes, and a mass of long unruly hair.3 He was a cross between a dwarf-sized black minstrel and an animal. The appearance was distorted and frightening (MacGregor, p. 125).

Florence Upton's ugly little creation was embraced by the English public. The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls was immensely popular in England, and Golliwogg became a national star. The second printing of the book was retitled The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg. For the next fourteen years, Bertha and Florence Upton created twelve more books featuring the Golliwogg and his adventures, traveling to such "exotic" places as Africa and the North Pole, accompanied by his friends, the Dutch Dolls ("Golliwog History", n.d.). In those books the Uptons put the Golliwogg first in every title.

The Uptons did not copyright the Golliwogg, and the image entered into public domain. The Golliwogg name was changed to Golliwog, and he became a common toyland character in children's books. The Upton Golliwogg was adventurous and sometimes silly, but, in the main, gallant and "lovable," albeit, unsightly. Later Golliwogs were often unkind, mean-spirited, and even more visually hideous'

@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.

Having it in the house won’t magically “make” you racist somehow. It’s not a virus or a curse.

I wouldn’t want it in my house either, so I wouldn’t accept it. There is nothing to stop you explaining politely and respectfully to the Gt Aunt that golly dolls are no longer socially acceptable so would be an awkward thing for DD to own, but that you appreciate the offer because you know it’s an artefact of her childhood and precious to her.

Oh just put it in the bin OP and forget about it.

If aunt asks say you can't find it (true).

Could everyone PLEASE stop using the “w” part of the term? We can discuss this without saying “w##” over and over.

I think you should tell her you don’t want it thanks, These dolls have been offensive for years... I was given one in the mid 80’s and my mum took it off me because it was racist and she didn’t want me playing with it.

@MrsBonnie if my mother were alive now, she would be the age your aunt is. In about 1965, when I was four years old, somebody gave me one of these things for Christmas. It mysteriously vanished within the hour, never to be seen again.

I would say your aunt ought to know they’re offensive if my mother did.

However I don't think anything excuses the B & W Minstrals........I hated them even as a child I could see it wasn't ok

I think that these dolls were supposed to look like B+W minstrels weren't they? Same clothes and distorted features. A racist caricature of a racist caricature.

I'm sorry but I couldn't accept it. We're anti racism in this house and I wouldn't have something like that under my roof. Why should you have to think of what to do with the thing or where to put it? What to tell your DD? Just don't accept it. I don't think you should use it as a learning tool for your DD, either. She'll be wondering why you're in possession of something so abhorrent in the first place. I don't know if it's a generation thing but I'd be mortified and shocked to be in this situation.

If anyone does want their racist dolls/figurines gone, why not sell them and give the money to charity.
An against racism one would be ideal.
I tried to find one but couldn't so gave to Sally Army instead.
They have no idea where the money came from and have no guilt receiving it.
Or, if it was a memory, it's not like they are being displayed and seen often. You could sell them and buy something as a reminder of your loved one.
I'm so glad mine have gone, even though I had happy memories playing with them as a child.

This thread really highlights the issue we are having in current society.

I haven't read the full thread but many responses seem to basically be saying comply with the racism to not cause upset.

This is what's happening in the world RIGHT NOW but on bigger scales where people are suffering because others turn blind eye to racism and don't want to upset people.

So they comply for the easy option.

Yes they were based originally on minstrals

@wewillmeetagain same here never knew it was a racist slur

Is there really a museum that takes these racist dolls in great numbers?

Yes but it’s in the US

The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State University

They have a webpage and exhibit on golliwogs here
www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/golliwog/homepage.htm

I do not know whether they need more of these dolls but it wouldn’t hurt to ask?

Due to the pandemic a lot of their exhibits are moving online

This article by the curator David Pilgrim is a powerful read and there are links to the museum exhibits on the page
www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/collect.htm

Personally I hate the idea of destroying important cultural artefacts, especially those that relate to racism and other isms. Destroying them doesn’t change history it is only an attempt to erase history, so that we never get to think about and learn from mistakes.

I would support a museum like this in the UK whether IRL or online

These weren't considered offensive years ago and i think actually originated from a book . Then became a childrens toy sold around the world .

@GroundAlmonds

Could everyone PLEASE stop using the “w” part of the term? We can discuss this without saying “w##” over and over.

Where do you think the offensive word wog came from? Unless people understand that the whole reason these foul things were made was to be offensive, and that the reason their name was adopted as a racial slur was to reflect this, then we will carry on having this discussion for the next 50 years.

Yes, it’s an offensive word , so no I wouldn’t ever say it or use it to describe another human being ,but have no problems writing it in a discussion like this. If we start disassociating the word from its origins and current meanings (Someone up thread actually said it would be ok to call golliwogs “Golly Dollys” as though that would somehow sanitise their nastiness ffs) then we are justifying and negating the racism that the golliwog represents, and hiding them away in attics and boxes becomes an acceptable way of dealing with and ignoring racism instead of challenging it.

Golly dolls aren't an important part of our history or a lesson that we need to keep them to teach our children. They are shameful evidence of wilful ignorance.

Fair enough to remember the oppression, suffering and slavery imposed by white on black, but to preserve the icon of the disgusting ridicule white society encouraged after this was abolished is an even bigger kick in the face.

It would be akin to the nazis mass producing a caricture of (a nazi pretending to be) Jewish doll and making it a common household item. Especially given that by the 1950s the country was desperate for workers and hence immigration of black populations was essential to keep the country running.

There is disrespect and then there is spite.

Golly dolls aren't an important part of our history or a lesson that we need to keep them to teach our children. They are shameful evidence of wilful ignorance.

Fair enough to remember the oppression, suffering and slavery imposed by white on black, but to preserve the icon of the disgusting ridicule white society encouraged after this was abolished is an even bigger kick in the face.

I was just wondering whether you checked my links to the Museum of Racist Memorabilia, which does sterling work educating people about racism?

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion