Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[Davie P]

Fascinating Radio 4 programme on the subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037jbts

 

"'Teddies' and 'Gollies' - US English Professor, Rhoda Zuk, talks to Laurie about her historical study into the place and meaning of teddy bears and golliwogs in children's lives and books, as well as in the 'racist' imagination."

[Gibber]

 

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.

 

As far as proof goes that's a direct quote (with my added [ ] brackets to avoid quoting the full post) from Ghostrider, not you.  Perhaps you should go back and familiarise yourself with the thread.  Glad you agree it's pretty strong stuff, perhaps you'd like to take issue with Ghostrider's posts.

 

And apologies if I've wrongly lumped you in with him and his views when I was making my point.  Although my point did immediately go on to address the dismissal of racist connotations of objects and symbols, which of course you do with golliwogs.  Again, a look back through the thread will appraise you of some of the history associated with these dolls.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Gibber

[unlinkedstudent]

 

 

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.

 

As far as proof goes that's a direct quote (with my added [ ] brackets to avoid quoting the full post) from Ghostrider, not you.  Perhaps you should go back and familiarise yourself with the thread.  Glad you agree it's pretty strong stuff, perhaps you'd like to take issue with Ghostrider's posts.

 

And apologies if I've wrongly lumped you in with him and his views when I was making my point.  Although my point did immediately go on to address the dismissal of racist connotations of objects and symbols, which of course you do with golliwogs.  Again, a look back through the thread will appraise you of some of the history associated with these dolls.

 

Direct quote?  You never quoted Ghostrider's entire sentence.  No doubt Ghostie will be online later.

[Gibber]

I quoted the entire attributed sentence at the top of my post and the relevant part of the sentence is quoted running in the text of my post, although I did take out an 'are' in the running quote to make it more gramatically correct in view of my added brackets, which as I said previously are there to avoid having to quote the entire sentence again.  This doesn't alter to any degree the meaning but for the sake of accuracy here is the running quote with the extra 'are' included.

 

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

[unlinkedstudent]

Blimey Gibber, are you aiming to get an award from Shetland Arts for the art of misquoting people or what?  "for the sake of accuracy" , you still haven't managed to quote accurately!

[Ghostrider]

 

 

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."

 

On, no! What you have presented as a "conclusion" is a viable alternative possibility, for which there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever. Where you have a situation with no evidence to support any possible scenario, the only logical conclusion to reach is that no scenario exists, which is the conclusion I presented "based on that [there being none] evidence"

 

There are many equally viable alternative possibilities in addition to your suggestion, but none of them have any credence or relevance without evidence to support them.

[Gibber]

Where you have a situation with no evidence to support any possible scenario, the only logical conclusion to reach is that no scenario exists, which is the conclusion I presented "based on that [there being none] evidence"

 

It doesn't logically follow at all, you can never know when you have sufficient evidence to prove a negative.  And since you're using your own defined term of what constitutes evidence; namely 'coloured' residents of Shetland who 'make a fuss', it also doesn't logically follow that Shetland's 'coloured' residents who didn't 'make a fuss' are therefore unaffected by having golliwogs on sale in Shetland. 

 

If the tiny minority of 'coloured' people in Shetland are aware of an attitude amongst the non 'coloured' people of the majority like you that is reflected in statements like this... 

 

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

 

...when they do 'make a fuss', it's perfectly reasonable to address reasons why they haven't, other than soley concluding that there is no offence being taken.  It should be enough that a black person regardless of where they live has taken issue and you're certainly not in a position to disregard his views because he's not from Shetland.

[Gibber]

Blimey Gibber, are you aiming to get an award from Shetland Arts for the art of misquoting people or what?  "for the sake of accuracy" , you still haven't managed to quote accurately!

 

And yet, despite you saying this, I have.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Gibber

[trowie246]

I read on this blog his quote "Free people free people and hurt people hurt people".

 

Mr Sissay, in my opinion, is not free and never will be until he learns to forgive people who in the past have used the golly doll to depict black people. Of course racism still exists as does every other 'ism' that has ever been dreamed up. But it not the object or the word which is used it is the context in which it is used that is important.  The use of the 'N' word is deeply offensive to many black people and also to many white people.  Yet, I read on the Guardian blog about a family with a black uncle who had a dog they call 'Nigga'.  When the boy asked why the dog was called that he was told 'it's another word for black'. As someone has already mentioned black rappers use the word in their music as some sort of vain attempt to dis-empower the word. But where does that leave me? I am a white person who is offended by the use of the 'N' word when it is used by white people, so does that mean when it is used by black people I have no right to be offended? I'm very confused.

I always thought the word 'Bitch' was a slur against women too, now my daughter and niece use it the whole time. Apparently it's  a joke. Just not down with the kids at all.

Edited September 22, 2013 by trowie246

[Ghostrider]

 

Where you have a situation with no evidence to support any possible scenario, the only logical conclusion to reach is that no scenario exists, which is the conclusion I presented "based on that [there being none] evidence"

 

It doesn't logically follow at all, you can never know when you have sufficient evidence to prove a negative.  And since you're using your own defined term of what constitutes evidence; namely 'coloured' residents of Shetland who 'make a fuss', it also doesn't logically follow that Shetland's 'coloured' residents who didn't 'make a fuss' are therefore unaffected by having golliwogs on sale in Shetland. 

 

It most certainly does follow, as I was not making any attempt whatsoever to prove a negative. I was pointing out that the known evidence only leads to one logical conclusion, to reach any other conclusion you would require to have evidence to lead you in that direction which, if it exists, has not been produced yet.

 

I never said coloured Shetland residents (and/or previous coloured visitors) were unaffected by Gollowogs being offered for sale in Shetland, I said that any affect on them seemed to be minimal given they haven't voiced any objections. If folk don't complain other unaffected folk are going to believe everything is okay until such time as complaints are made. I chose coloured Shetland residents (and previous coloured visitors to Shetland) as logic dictates that if anyone has a valid informed opinion on the issue, they are those most likely to. Tell me I'm wrong.

 

Edited September 22, 2013 by Ghostrider

[Gibber]

It does not logically follow that this is the only conclusion.  They may not be aware of the dolls, they may have officially complained in confidence and nothing was done, they may have voiced their concerns informally to friends and left it at that, perhaps they didn't want to 'make a fuss' for whatever reason they choose or they may have thought the idea of complaining was a bad one given what they percieve (rightly or wrongly) to be a common prejudiced attitude in Shetland evinced by yourself in this forum when you say things like...

 

"....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."

And your self defined limits on what can be used as evidence to 'prove' that nobody has been offended are getting even smaller.  If you're willing to cite previous 'coloured' visitors to Shetland as unoffended because they, to your knowledge, didn't 'make a fuss' why is it that as soon as a 'coloured' visitor does publically 'make a fuss' you dismiss his opinions with....

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

You're saying that there is no offence being taken by 'coloured' people because they aren't 'making a fuss' right up until they do 'make a fuss', at which point you attack them in public for doing so.

[unlinkedstudent]

 

There has been no real attempt to tackle the race side, plenty on how he went about it. Telling him he is mistaken about the way he feels.

 

He can feel anything he likes, the fact is he was passing through for less than five minutes, so his feelings are rather irrelevant. If he was offended enough not to come back, I think we'll manage to live quite happily and without deprivation not to enjoy his presence here again. Especially as just about no-one I've spoken to knew he was coming, let alone that he'd been.

 

Coloured people have been resident in Shetland as long as that shop has had that stock, and he's by no means the first coloured person to pass through here since that shop has had that stock either, yet he is the first coloured person to make a fuss about it. 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.

 

 

There ya go, Gibber, a full quote.

[as]

actually, he is not "the first coloured person to make a fuss". see origins of this very thread!

[unlinkedstudent]

actually, he is not "the first coloured person to make a fuss". see origins of this very thread!

 

Gosh, the original link no longer works and now refers to a dual role for Hazel Sutherland!  That said, I don't recall the original press report confirming whether the complainant was white or a PoC.

[Gibber]

Thanks for a full quote of the entire post.  However, I said I quoted the full sentence, not the entire post which appears to be what you are now claiming I said I did.  I didn't.

 

Thanks for reposting this bit though.

 

"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."