What was she thinking?! TW Racist Memorabilia

[CleaningWoes]

My partner's sister thought it appropriate to gift these to my 12 year old daughter for Christmas. What on earth was she thinking?? I'm horrified as is my partner. Our daughter had no clue what they were. I'm scared to even bin them in case they somehow fall out and up in the street. WTAF

A few things to dig into, here.

The first is that I think there's a pretty huge distinction between having something on display in a museum, with relevant context, vs giving it as a gift (particularly to a child).

I'm not one of those who suggested disposing of the dolls (I'd return to SIL) but equally I'm not sure there are a huge range of options beyond that. The ones pictured in the OP do not appear rare, so I'm not sure a museum would be interested (and, of course, gollywogs are still made and sold).

If the SIL refused to accept them back, I wouldn't have any particular issue with OP disposing of them - nobody is obliged to keep anything in their home that they don't want, after all.

I also think there's a question of remoteness: few (if any) of the things you have listed are likely to be considered offensive on their face, even if they are linked to dubious historical ideas or events. A gollywog, on the other hand, even if you are unware of their history and the additional baggage that goes with it, is a racist characture and is easily recognizable as such (at least, to adults). In that sense, they're more obviously and immediately offensive than even a swastika.

Finally, racism remains a present, real-world issue, including in the UK, and not one that is confined to the history books.

I would have declined them and told her I will not accept racist toys for my child.

I dunno why you accepted them?

I would assume they were wrapped when given, and SIL was not present when they were opened.

Good point!

Thank you. That is exactly what I am getting at.

@OneLemonDog Had you read my follow up to the OP saying she didn't want to sell it. I too suggested returning it to her sister.

There are are any number of historical artifacts that some may find offensive. For just one example think Egyptian antiquities in homes and collections which the Egyptians believe should never have left Egypt.

Want some modern examples, how about 'Bad taste bears' which some people may be offended by. Or 'See you jimmy' hats & leprachaun costumes for the Scots and Irish.

You can choose to be offended, or you could use the item to open discussion into the wrongs of the past. At the end of the day the item is just a bit of painted porcelain. It in itself is not racist.

So what
Are you actually saying that because someone might have a photo of their great Grandad in his army uniform then Golliwogs aren't racist?
You are using a lot of words to not make much sense

And again I did not report your post I'm a big boy and can easily cope with hurty words from somebody on the internet.

@Hoppinggreen I'm pointing out that any amount of things could be perceived as offensive dependent on the audience. But at the end of the day they are just things, by all means have a discussion why some may find them offensive.

It's only by understanding what has happened in the past that we can understand the present and avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.
History is very important and burying your head in the sand about it helps noone. People are still suffering because of things that have happened in the past and people are quite rightly offended by these objects. That is is no way comparable to people having wartime memorabilia. The figures are designed to amuse and make people laugh and Infantalise a whole section of society.

As an example put an image on your wall depicting Burma or Japan during WW2 and ask an ex prisoner of war from there if they find it offensive? Now some of these men are currently living. The people the dolls were depicting are long gone.

I'd very much doubt the child it was sent to would have any comprehension of the history of it. It may even give opportunity for education.

A. You did report it

B. You said you found my words ‘rude and childish’. Why did you find them rude? They’re just words?

If you wish to speak to a moderator, they will tell you I did not report it.

Your words were rude and childish. But again, big boy pants on here, Not something that would ruin my day.

Why have a discussion about why racist things are racist?
Maybe a discussion about why Nazis were bad, why the sky is blue, why water is wet?
Golliwogs ARE racist and no amount of discussion is needed and no amount of "but what about" either.
Anyone who thinks a discussion is needed first could be accused of trying to minimise racism

Maybe it didn’t ruin your day. But it was enough for you to label it. Words have meaning. Objects also have meanings. Again you have talked yourself round in circles. Or do you now wish to assert that words have no meaning?

This is exactly what they’re trying to do here. Albeit very badly.

There is no excuse for having these racist things.
Not nostalgia, not history, not culture, not whataboutery, not anything else people try to dream up.

I'm very surprised and disgusted that the poll isn't more decisively on the “you're not unreasonable” side.

I get regularly surprised and disgusted on MN threads that discuss anything related to race these days

@Giggorata

I'm very surprised and disgusted that the poll isn't more decisively on the “you're not unreasonable” side.

It is MN. It’s not nicknamed “Prosecco Stormfront” for no reason…

Destroy them or send to the museum as suggested (if they are wanting them) and explain to your dd why

and tell your SIL not to buy anymore racist gifts

of course she knows that these so called toys are offensive, they are not to her but she doesn’t care if they are to others - she is a racist that is very clear from her gift

I'm always amazed at the extent to which some posters tie themselves in knots trying to defend racism.

At the end of the day the item is just a bit of painted porcelain. It in itself is not racist.
I think that is immensely reductive for objects in general: for example, when nooses are left hanging at the doors of black people - as does happen in the US - I don't think anyone honest-minded would argue "what's the big deal? It's only a peice of string".

It is even more reductive when you're talking about an object that actually depicts something or someone, as gollywogs do.

From one of your other posts:
The people the dolls were depicting are long gone
It seems that you don't really understand what gollywogs are, which perhaps explains your peculiar focus on slavery on the last page and seeming belief that gollywogs represent purerly a historic wrongdoing. Gollywogs are a characture of black people generally, as a class. Black people are not "long gone".