What is wrong with these people?

[Bobblemymind]

Apologies for Daily Fail link. These landlords are fighting to keep their collection of extremely racist dolls on display. What possible justification could someone have for having a golliwog on display in this day and age? There is no ambiguity here, golliwogs are vile.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11949421/Moment-six-police-officers-raid-Essex-pub-seize-15-golliwog-dolls.html

What possible justification could someone have for having a golliwog on display in this day and age?

I would imagine people keep them due to some level of sentimental attachment to them due to how they were received? I’m not one for keeping stuff to remember people but if I was I might well have kept the pin badges you got with a jam years ago. My grandma used to collect them and we were allowed to play with them as kids. I remember them well. I’m not that sentimental though so they were sold or given away with everything else.

I am delighted that you are indignant on my behalf

so back to the point
i own golly dolls:/ badges and no way would i ever part with them as they were gifted to me by my black grandmother

to own them does not make me racist

Ah I missed something from not reading the article. I try to avoid the daily mail whenever possible. They are on display in a pub vs just at home. I can absolutely see choosing to keep them and I wouldn’t judge that. Putting them up in a public space does seem like it’s sending a message though. I can imagine many black people would feel like that’s signalling that they are not welcome and that most people would realise that.

With respect, OP was not talking about you. Lovely that you have these memories with your grandmother

Where would MUMSNET aibu be without the Daily Mail?

@BuckinghamPalaceFountain again, your affection for racist dolls, does not make racist dolls acceptable.

I'm uncomfortable with the police coming in and taking them away as a crime.

Those things are indisputably racist, and I wouldn't drink at that pub (and would let my friends and family know that I didn't and why I didn't), just as I've avoided buying things at seaside shops that display them, and I'd make my own personal judgements about the likely character and judgement of people who proudly display them (though I also know adults whose much-loved childhood bedtime cuddly toy unfortunately happened to be one of these, and I wouldn't hold it against them if they still had theirs in a cupboard somewhere as they didn't feel able to throw it away even after discovering the connotations later in life).

I'd back anyone campaigning for those who display them to learn why they're racist and upsetting, or asking them to remove them from display, or advocating people boycott the business until they're removed.

But unless maybe you can argue that they've been displayed in an attempt to disturb the peace, or as messaging to keep black people away from the premises, i.e. they can be shown to be breaking the law in some other way rather than just being dealt with under hate speech legislation, I'm squeamish about bringing in state powers to control what people can say and do, even if those things are racist or otherwise discriminatory.

I'm not black and I guess I might feel differently about this if I were, but I do belong to other groups that are often victims of discriminatory treatment, and I feel similarly uncomfortable about restrictions on what's often described as hateful speech or conduct.

I once saw someone urinate up against the bar in that pub at about 4pm in the afternoon. It's an absolute cess pit

Six police officers though, seriously?
Not condoning the actual dolls but come on...

I had a black baby doll too. Why was that a racist thing? There are black babies!

Gollywogs are different- they are caricatures- nobody who is black looks like a gollywog. They are a racist thing.

anyone remember the Rufty Tufty books

@JarByTheDoor I agree that the police shouldn’t be involved but the owners should also stop pretending that they are anything except racist arseholes.

@BuckinghamPalaceFountain

i was born in 1969, as a young child I was given. A black baby doll. I loved her the same as my 'pink' baby dolls. I still have all of them and she's not going anywhere.

I still have my gollywog. As a child he was just the same as my other rag dolls, baby dolls and all of them were loved as much as my snake, dog, frog, hippo etc etc.

my gollywog is not going anywhere either. He's not 'displayed', but none of them are.

he's not going to offend anyone because his social life is shit these days!

@BuckinghamPalaceFountain

There is a very big difference of someone of black heritage having a golly or similar depiction as a record of societal chance and/or part of a ‘negrobilia’ collection that has historical context and white people having them on display in public as ‘they’re just dolls’.

They are purposely racist images.

And my grandmother was black as was my mother as am I.

@MrsMarkieParkie
Good old Enid Blyton
https://www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1782
Three Little Gollies
original character names Gollie, Woggie and Ni*r.

Would you like to explain your last sentence?

Ageism is not a good look either.

That didn't take long.

There is no history behind golliwogs that matters.

Or perhaps I should say, no history that matters so much that it is essential that people feel free to hurt others by displaying them.

Are you squeamish about the equality laws in all contexts? Do you think that, for instance, people should be free to make a living out of jokes about racial minorities, women, and disabled people? Do you think it's OK to advertise jobs for whites only or to refuse to promote capable people because they're women? Are you squeamish about preventing landlords from putting up signs like "No blacks, no Irish"? How far should your protection of freedom of speech go? Shall we leave Tommy Robinson and his delightful friends free to spew hateful fiction and threats towards racial minorities?

No, I come at it from a free speech perspective, the "right to swing your fist ends at my nose" type.

Do you think that, for instance, people should be free to make a living out of jokes about racial minorities, women, and disabled people?

Yes, I think they should be legally allowed to do this, if they can find a willing audience, and get venues and publishers which are willing to host them knowing the consequences when it comes to public opinion, and as long as they don't commit crimes like inciting violence etc.

Do you think it's OK to advertise jobs for whites only or to refuse to promote capable people because they're women?

No, this is dealt with by employment discrimination laws, not hatred or speech laws. It's not what I'm talking about.

Are you squeamish about preventing landlords from putting up signs like "No blacks, no Irish"?

Yes, I'm against housing discrimination. It's also not what I'm talking about.

How far should your protection of freedom of speech go?

About as far as traditional liberal freedom of speech laws have always gone. Yes, there are always edge cases which provoke much discussion, but until quite recently it's been uncontroversial among liberals and leftwing people to say that you think people should be legally allowed to express opinions you disagree with, as long as they're not calling for harm, or actively discriminating against people WRT employment, providing of goods and services, etc. (This is why I mentioned the possibility that having a display of racist dolls in a pub may in practice amount to discrimination in provision of goods or services.)

Shall we leave Tommy Robinson and his delightful friends free to spew hateful fiction and threats towards racial minorities?

They should be legally allowed to express their opinions (though others shouldn't be legally required to host or publish those opinions), but should not be legally allowed to make threats.

@BuckinghamPalaceFountain
I'm sure you know if you're racist or not. You are correct, owning a Gollywog doesn't mean you're a racist. I had a cat called Golly (years ago). I also had a Golly badge from Robinsons marmalade.

So, for an example that pertains to me personally, I have a severe mental illness and have spent time in mental hospitals.

A few years back, there was a fashion for theme parks to do Halloween events based around scary lunatic asylums, with actors playing deranged and dangerous patients, and lots of shops sold "mental patient" Halloween outfits. There were also lots of video games at the time based around the scary lunatic asylum concept.

I disliked this fashion, because although mental asylums did exist and could be unpleasant places for those unfortunate enough to be there, large fun-focussed family attractions were effectively saying that mentally ill people are frightening, unpredictable, dangerous beings deserving of Halloween monster status, who can't be related to as human beings, only as stereotyped characters, and painting asylums as these almost mythical monster-houses. It felt like household-name businesses were pushing the idea that it's okay to use a cartoon depiction of the decades of psychiatric abuse we've suffered for cheap thrills, trivialising real human experience, and turning people with mental illness into stereotype boogeymen. I felt that as well as being hurtful to people with mental illness and their families and friends, it could twist public perception of mentally ill people and mental asylums (and more modern inpatient psychiatric care), especially among the young people a lot of these things are aimed at.

But I don't think that outlawing these things as hate crime is either necessary or the best way to go about it. Campaigners managed to get press coverage, explain the inaccuracies and the upset and/or harm potentially caused, and some places stopped running this type of event. Others modified the way they ran things. Others still didn't, but the coverage is out there so that people who want to visit these attractions can choose to read an opposing viewpoint. If they'd simply been outlawed as hate speech or harmful inaccuracy against the mentally ill, there wouldn't necessarily have been any public discussion about how and why people felt harmed by these depictions, or how they felt that these events and costumes and games could detrimentally skew public perception of the mentally ill. It would've just been the law jumping in and ruining people's innocent fun, a peremptory demand to stop that wouldn't have changed anyone's mind, just made people resentful. And TBH people should be legally allowed to do this kind of thing, just as others should be legally allowed to say that it's harmful, explain why, and campaign for them to stop and for others to boycott them.

That is perhaps the most patronising thing I've ever read on MN, which is impressive.