Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[Gibber]

"that word was designed to hurt me, in fact it was on this planet before me. So if something is designed to hurt you, what do you do? You don’t let it. Like, if I was a woman, I wouldn’t let words like “b+*@h†or “c&@-†or “fat†upset me. I would be more offended by words like “you’re gonna be paid lessâ€."

 

The reason I bring this up is it kind of shows that what is offensive is very subjective.......As such it's a shame that this Golly issue has snowballed into where we now are, purely because one person has decided that their views on the subject are the correct view and that the rest of us need to be educated as to why our views are wrong and how only his opinion can be the right one.

 

It doesn't show 'what is offensive is very subjective', it shows the different ways of dealing with what is offensive are subjective. 

 

As you yourself quote "...if something is designed to hurt you, what do you do?" RDH deals with it one way, the Guardian writer another.  The question isn't, is this actually hurtful/offensive? and therefore doesn't somehow equate to the political correctness gone mad trope of "one person has decided that their views on the subject are the correct view and that the rest of us need to be educated as to why our views are wrong."

Edited September 20, 2013 by Gibber

[Gibber]

 

The only conclusion that can be reached from that evidence is that coloured people who are offended to any significant degree by golliwogs are few and far between, and quite frankly, if those who are are in any way of character like this one, we can well do without both them and their extremist opinions.

 

 

That's not the only conclusion that can be reached. 

 

Perhaps Shetland's ethnic minorities concluded long ago that a 'vocal few' are the only ones on their side in Shetland and a majority of 'non coloured' people like yourself, Colin, Trout and Unlinked will dismiss the connotations of any racially offensive items if they are being sold in a Shetland shop by a 'non coloured' nice old Shetland lady and told by people like you that, "if those [coloured people] who are in any way of character like this one [Lemn Sissay], we can well do without both them and their extremist opinions."

 

"...he was passing through for less than five minutes, so his feelings are rather irrelevant."

 

No, he just doesn't have to live and work on a small island amongst the (majority, you claim) likes of you, so can voice his feelings without having to worry that his concerns are going to be publically dismissed and ridiculed, (and perhaps personally and publically embarrassed) by pissed up guizers in Trout's squad dressed as gollywogs and being set on fire, who at best think they are cleverly satirising big city, PC gone mad stupidity.

[unlinkedstudent]

Soooo Gibber, by your stance, I reckon you would agree with me that because I don't like many of the lyrics by Eminem (and many a feminist has voiced that they don't like the lyrics either), that had I gone into Clives Record Shop and voiced my concern that he was selling said album(s), that because I complained and Clive probably knew (or should have known) how some women feel about that artist, Clive should have immediately withdrawn the album(s) from sale?  Alternatively, should I have gone in, told Clive I thought Eminem was the best thing on earth, bought the album and then blogged about how I hated Eminem, expressing my view that he was letting all of Shetland down by selling them?

[Clooty Cap]

 

It doesn't show 'what is offensive is very subjective', it shows the different ways of dealing with what is offensive are subjective. 

 

As you yourself quote "...if something is designed to hurt you, what do you do?" RDH deals with it one way, the Guardian writer another.  The question isn't, is this actually hurtful/offensive? and therefore doesn't somehow equate to the political correctness gone mad trope of "one person has decided that their views on the subject are the correct view and that the rest of us need to be educated as to why our views are wrong."

I disagree, what RDH shows is that the act of taking offence is entirely in the head of the individual, he doesn't say if something is offensive then just don't show it, he's not saying being called the N word "wounded him" but he just smiled and got on with it, He is stating that he doesn't take offence in the first instance. For something to be offensive, offence has to be both intended and received.

 

What Lemn has done is infer that there was offence intended where there never was. Lemn states that on a daily basis the shopkeeper has made a conscious decision to place these offensive dolls in her window. That's simply untrue, she may have made a decision to place the dolls in her window but for Lemm to imply that it is done in a provocative and offensive manner is simply him placing excessive emphasis on his own opinions and being unduly egocentric.

[Clooty Cap]

 

I don't know if any of you are aware of a comedian called Reginald D Hunter, if you are you'll know he is an African American and he was brought up in Georgia in the 1970's, the reason I bring him up is because he probably has a lot in common with Lemn Sissay, a black man brought up in the 1970's who has probably been a victim of genuine racism. Reginald though has taken his experiences and used them in a totally different way than Lemn. When talking about people using the N word at him this is his take on it

 

 

 

As for Reginald D Hunter, I think he is one of the best 'off the cuff' comedians of modern time.

I never realised until today that he was black!    Can I say that? Coloured? Non caucasian? One of my best friends is .... etc etc

When discussing this at work yesterday I brought up RDH and 2 of my workmates didn't have a clue who I was talking about so I felt I'd maybe better give some background information just to be on the safe side especially when you consider the subject we are discussing here.

[Evil Inky]

So let me get this straight:

 

A black man is offended by something a white woman is selling in her shop: black man to blame for being thin-skinned.

 

A white woman is offended by something a black man wrote in his blog: black man to blame due to offence suffered by white woman.

 

Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

[Gibber]

Soooo Gibber, by your stance, I reckon you would agree with me that because I don't like many of the lyrics by Eminem (and many a feminist has voiced that they don't like the lyrics either), that had I gone into Clives Record Shop and voiced my concern that he was selling said album(s), that because I complained and Clive probably knew (or should have known) how some women feel about that artist, Clive should have immediately withdrawn the album(s) from sale?  Alternatively, should I have gone in, told Clive I thought Eminem was the best thing on earth, bought the album and then blogged about how I hated Eminem, expressing my view that he was letting all of Shetland down by selling them?

 

So it's just the way he went about voicing his concerns about someone selling racist caricatures that is the problem?  If you're going to allow the sale of things so obviously loaded with racial stereotyping like golliwogs you have to, in fairness, also give an equally liberal allowance in what people can say and do about the issue.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Gibber

[Clooty Cap]

So let me get this straight:

 

A black man is offended by something a white woman is selling in her shop: black man to blame for being thin-skinned.

 

A white woman is offended by something a black man wrote in his blog: black man to blame due to offence suffered by white woman.

 

Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

You seem to have deliberately got the wrong end of the stick, what Lemn did was deliberately attack the shops owner for selling the dolls, he made a point of making it a personal attack against an individual. The shops owner, as far as we are aware didn't set out to make a display that she knew would be seen as a potentially offensive to a certain group or individual, if she did then it would have surely been counterproductive to what the main aim of a display in a shop window is intended to achieve, entice customers into her shop to spend money.

 

I cant speak for everyone but i would say that Lemn is entitled to feel that the display is something that he isn't comfortable with, the problem arises when Lemn voiced his feeling in the manner he did. He didn't speak to the shop owner about how he felt then he proceeded to tell everyone how nasty and vindictive this woman was and that she was without a doubt a racist because of her actions, he seems unwilling to admit that this is his opinion and that there is a chance that he could be wrong.

 

I find it distasteful when i see a placard in a church window claiming that god is the answer to all your problems especially when you consider that bible seems to condone abhorrent acts such as slavery, but that's just my opinion it doesn't make it a fact and it doesn't mean that the church should stop placing placards in there window claiming how great god is either.

[Gibber]

I disagree, what RDH shows is that the act of taking offence is entirely in the head of the individual, he doesn't say if something is offensive then just don't show it, he's not saying being called the N word "wounded him" but he just smiled and got on with it,

 

The act of an individual, letting or not letting something offend, does not define whether something can or can't be called offensive.

 

As you said "...if something is offensive...he just smiled and got on with it...".  It's still offensive no matter how he decides to react to it.

[Clooty Cap]

 

I disagree, what RDH shows is that the act of taking offence is entirely in the head of the individual, he doesn't say if something is offensive then just don't show it, he's not saying being called the N word "wounded him" but he just smiled and got on with it,

 

The act of an individual, letting or not letting something offend, does not define whether something can or can't be called offensive.

 

As you said "...if something is offensive...he just smiled and got on with it...". It's still offensive no matter how he decides to react to it.

that's not what i said, you took parts of my quote to create something new that becomes something that you said. In fact what i said was the exact opposite of that.

Should someone want to say something to offend me how I react to it is the deciding factor on if its offensive. Should I fall out with you and you decide to call me every name under the sun, if I decide to say to myself he's just saying that because we fell out and laugh about it then there is no offense regardless of how much you wanted to offend me, but if I take your name calling to heart and let it hurt my feelings then your comment becomes offensive.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Clooty Cap

[owre-weel]

Mr Sissay has now written about the subject in the Guardian

 

ww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/golliwog-shetland?CMP=twt_gu

Interesting how he fails to mention the words he used to describe the shop keeper and the way he went about dealing with the issue. Luckily some of the comments below the article clear this up and give a fuller version of events.

 

I wonder if the guardian tried to get the other side of the story?

 

Despite everyone's right to voice an opinion, it is clear to me that Mr Sissay went about this all wrong. By being a bit sneaky and by verbally attacking the shop keeper in his blog rather than have an adult discussion he vastly reduced any support he may have got to his strong views and instead showed himself to be a person who I for one would now be concerned to meet for fear of being misquoted and ridiculed. It was a clear example of someone being two faced.

[Gibber]

I didn't mean to misquote you.  Ok I see your point.  You can certainly say the N word in certain contexts without it being offensive so it's also possible to hear the N word without it actively being offensive in certain contexts and indeed by individuals regardless of context.

 

I would assume that RDH does recognise that racially offensive terms exist objectively (or at least within a large number of subjective experiences), even though he personally may not be offended by them.

[Clooty Cap]

Personally I wouldn't use that word, and have never dreamed of using it in any context that referred to a black person, the only reason I mentioned RDH using it was that from the very first time I heard the stand up routine I quoted it struck a cord with me as a great way to live your life. " if something is designed to offend you then just don't let it " very refreshing to hear that from someone who has probably faced real persecution throughout their life.

 

For the record I do hate seeing racism, sexism and homophobic attitudes being portrayed anywhere, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that just because someone takes offence at a comment or situation because that feel it may be homophobic for example, then that person is correct to take offence, if that makes any sense.

[Equality Street]

Could make for an interesting Up Helly Aa squad...

[Colin]

Perhaps Shetland's ethnic minorities concluded long ago that a 'vocal few' are the only ones on their side in Shetland and a majority of 'non coloured' people like yourself, Colin, Trout and Unlinked will dismiss the connotations of any racially offensive items if they are being sold in a Shetland shop by a 'non coloured' nice old Shetland lady and told by people like you that, "if those [coloured people] who are in any way of character like this one [Lemn Sissay], we can well do without both them and their extremist opinions."

 

Welcome to Gibbers world [** mod edit - comment removed - watch your tone Colin **]

 

Ist, being red, white, yellow, brown and black means that we are all coloured one way or another... It just isn't an issue for me.

 

2nd, I do not, and have never, found Gollywogs to be 'racially offensive items'.  They are just dolls.  If they represent something different to you then, so be it but, you shouldn't really expect everyone else to sing from your 'hymn sheet'.

 

3rd, You couldn't be more wrong in generalising my position with your quote;

"if those [coloured people] who are in any way of character like this one [Lemn Sissay], we can well do without both them and their extremist opinions."

A pretty strong and, in my case at least, a completly unfounded accusation. Please do not presume to understand my (or anyone else's) percieved 'attitude' to all and sundry unless you have proper proof of it. 

 

4th, Go back and read (maybe understand as well) my posts on this thread.

 

5th, In this instance, Mr Sissay has not, imho, acted in an honourable way.  Preferring, instead, to 'set up' Mrs Leask and then take a few cheap shots at her on his blog because she had been 'told' before.  Is that OK with you?