Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[JohanofNess]

I am not trying to "make" people "think" anything. I am only exercising my right to voice my personal opinion, same as anybody else on this forum.  I was trying to put a non british view of Gollywogs across, but no doubt there will be those who will repeat the mantra that non of us can possibly be offended as we are white and therefore have no right to be offended.

 

I would ask people to forget the whole race/ colour issue, but instead show some sensitivity towards other people, instead of going on about me me me. Just about because you personally are not offended gives no one the right to decide who is "allowed".

 

 

Offense is such a personal thing though, Mr Sissay was offended while many other people who could claim offense on the same grounds haven't been. Everyones sensitivity to these things is different, when I get called a sweaty sock by an English client I take it as banter and nothing more, another one of my colleagues finds it crosses the line and is offensive. What we have found is Mr Sissay feels gollywogs cross the line but we've also found not everyone is offended to anything like the same degree. Yeah Thelma Leask should take on board it could be viewed as racially sensitive but by the same token Mr Sissay has managed to offend people with his behaviour.

 

While a community should be sensitive to other peoples opinions it also shouldn't feel the need to blindly apologise for offense taken. I can see why he was offended but at the same time I don't agree the sale of gollywogs was intended to offend.

[unlinkedstudent]

Gibber, I respectfully suggest you read Ghostie's posts again.

 

Since when has art being porn?  And no, the equivalent would be such items not being able to be in full view in a shop window display.

 

Don't you bleeding well dare insinuate that I'm ignorant to racist connotations - go back and read what I've put. C.A.R.E.F.U.L.L.Y.

[Clooty Cap]

Unfortunately there is no corroboration in writing, as I deleted those pm's long ago. But I have no reason to doubt what I have been told by the petitioner.

 

I am not trying to "make" people "think" anything. I am only exercising my right to voice my personal opinion, same as anybody else on this forum.  I was trying to put a non british view of Gollywogs across, but no doubt there will be those who will repeat the mantra that non of us can possibly be offended as we are white and therefore have no right to be offended.

 

I would ask people to forget the whole race/ colour issue, but instead show some sensitivity towards other people, instead of going on about me me me. Just about because you personally are not offended gives no one the right to decide who is "allowed".

 

But what kind of doll would it take to make you offended? Would you feel offended if they were little Hitler dolls, complete with uniform and salute? More to the point would you "have the right" to be offended?

 

As Gollywogs are not illegal merchandise the shopkeeper is of course within her rights to continue selling them. And we spent 9 pages going round in circles. A bit pointless to keep argueing.....

I'm not aware of anyone denying people the right to be offended, what I have seen is people taking issue with the stance of, once someone has taken offence then all efforts must be made to remove the source of the offence. Just because someone takes offence it doesn't make that person right and the unoffended wrong.

I think the other thing that is being forgotten here is that the items causing offence are in a shop, the main aim of this shop is to entice people in to spend money, had there been a significant number of people who have been offended then surely that would have had a detrimental affect on the shops sales.

[shetlandpeat]

I think the other thing that is being forgotten here is that the items causing offence are in a shop, the main aim of this shop is to entice people in to spend money, had there been a significant number of people who have been offended then surely that would have had a detrimental affect on the shops sales.

 

That could be difficult to ascertain as you would need to have a similar period without the dolls, even then, very hard to use as evidence that folk have just not gone into the shop. Some visitors may just not go in. As for the rest of Shetland, there is not much else beyond the shops there, folk may not know about it as they may never had a need to use that part of the highway..

 

Gibber, remember this is not a jolly jape, you have been told you are wrong, take it like a man

 

Perhaps, with comments on Policing and the comments here, the worst thing that could happen is that visitors and those not originally from Shetland may just see the place as a 3rd world "county" in a Alfred Sauvy sense. That could though become bad.

[Clooty Cap]

 

I think the other thing that is being forgotten here is that the items causing offence are in a shop, the main aim of this shop is to entice people in to spend money, had there been a significant number of people who have been offended then surely that would have had a detrimental affect on the shops sales.

 

That could be difficult to ascertain as you would need to have a similar period without the dolls, even then, very hard to use as evidence that folk have just not gone into the shop. Some visitors may just not go in. As for the rest of Shetland, there is not much else beyond the shops there, folk may not know about it as they may never had a need to use that part of the highway..

 

Gibber, remember this is not a jolly jape, you have been told you are wrong, take it like a man

 

Perhaps, with comments on Policing and the comments here, the worst thing that could happen is that visitors and those not originally from Shetland may just see the place as a 3rd world "county" in a Alfred Sauvy sense. That could though become bad.

Not necessarily SP, most shops in Shetland will run on such a fine line between success and failure that they can ill afford to deliberately discourage customers from entering the shop, and to actively discriminate against a whole ethnic group would be a suicidal buisness plan for any shop with such small profit margins.

Doesn't Lemn himself try educate us as to the fact that the shops in Shetland are unsustainable without the money tourists pour into their tills when the cruise ships visit? Despite having these dolls for sale in her shop and on display in the window the shop in question has managed to stay open, it has been a success when so many around her have failed. Is it not possible that the number of people offended by this display are low enough as to stop her losing out on business to any significant degree and as such it could also be possible that as has been stated by others before that of all the many different nationalities and races of people who visit this island on an annual basis that only a few individuals have taken any real offence at these dolls.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Clooty Cap

[as]

my internet connection is absolutely awful and keeps cutting out on me, so I am unwilling/ unable to sift through 10 pages of this thread. and quite frankly; I can't be bothered anymore.

 

But, if you were to read through you will find somewhere in these pages much further back an ongoing argument between the usual players wether a white person has the "right" to be offended by something which would only "affect" a non white person and also vice versa. Somebody put the argument forward that it could be seen as "patronising" by coloured women if white "sisters" were to take up their cause, or something to that affect anyway. It is somewhere in here, happy searching if you feel you have the time to spare.

 

As has been rightly said so many times, we are all offended/ peed off at different things, but this whole thread is just getting utterly pointless and a moomin for tat. There is no argument to win from either side and I reckon everything that needs to be said has been said umpteen times already.

[Gibber]

Don't you bleeding well dare insinuate that I'm ignorant to racist connotations - go back and read what I've put. C.A.R.E.F.U.L.L.Y.

 

Are you saying you are aware of the racist connotations of golliwogs?

Edited September 23, 2013 by Gibber

[trout]

Anyone fancy adding to or moving this thread forward? I'd tend to agree with those raising points of having turned stale. I would go so far to say into a trutellation. Prove me wrong.

[Gibber]

Perhaps we should abandon Trout's tasteful, inclusive, nuanced and subtle Swiftian satire and instead have an Up Helly AA skit where a crowd of gap toothed carrot crunching barefoot hick yokels in Fair Isle jumpers stare baffled and confused at a well dressed black person reading The Financial Times.  The payoff being that when the stereotype islanders finally get over the miracle of the printed word and the 'funny coloured uncan man', the black person knowingly asides to the audience in a broad Shetland accent, 'whit's wrang wee dis folk, dere no right'

[matlo]

Have to say I sympathise with Trout's view, but at the risk of adding to the trøttel the debate reminded me that the  first people of colour that most Shetlanders had dealings with in the old days were the Sikh salesmen who used to appear every summer selling drapery door-to-door. (I have a feeling they were students making a bit of cash in their holidays.)

The interesting thing was that they were known as 'Packies' - which would seem pretty unacceptable to contemporary ears, but the fact was that the Scottish travellers who also sold clothing door-to-door were known as 'Packies' too.

 

They were all called Packies because they carried packs.

 

There's a little bit of metropolitan-centredness behind a lot of the assumptions in this debate, both the relatively sensible one here and the sometimes near-insane one in the Guardian. There's a slightly arrogant assumption that there's one acceptable standard and everyone should be educated to adhere to it. I would have thought that true tolerance would take account of cultural differences - we don't all have the same stories and we shouldn't assume that the rules we follow will be universal.

[Colin]

There's a slightly arrogant assumption that there's one acceptable standard and everyone should be educated to adhere to it. I would have thought that true tolerance would take account of cultural differences - we don't all have the same stories and we shouldn't assume that the rules we follow will be universal.

 

Almost spot on except that the assumtion tends to be a little more than 'slightly' arrogant.

[Ghostrider]

Perhaps we should abandon Trout's tasteful, inclusive, nuanced and subtle Swiftian satire and instead have an Up Helly AA skit where a crowd of gap toothed carrot crunching barefoot hick yokels in Fair Isle jumpers stare baffled and confused at a well dressed black person reading The Financial Times.  The payoff being that when the stereotype islanders finally get over the miracle of the printed word and the 'funny coloured uncan man', the black person knowingly asides to the audience in a broad Shetland accent, 'whit's wrang wee dis folk, dere no right'

 

Don't forget, they'll all need to be shagging sheep as well to ensure full stereotypical authenticity.

 

Personally, I'd find that act, with, or without the sheep shagging, absolutely hilarious - I might even be tempted to bother caring that it was UHA time of year if I knew the entertainment was of that calibre.

 

You see, at least some of us have the ability not to take life so seriously that we can't laugh at and poke fun at the stereotypes of ourselves, as we know how inaccurate and irrelevant they really are. Unlike others who are not even an offended party, but claim to be proxies representing an "alleged potentially offended party", but never do present quantifiable verifiable proof of those claims, that come over all indignant and butt-hurt at the slightest hint that something might just possibly could be construed as mildly offensive to a small portion of some minority were they to happen to view it in a certain light.

 

Personally I find religion and government wherever it is in the world and at whatever level, and especially the ostentatious edificies erected and maintained in their "honour" to be nauseatingly offensive. I realise that I am probably in a minority of as few as no more than one in feeling this way, and even if there are more, they're keeping it quiet, so out of politeness and respect for others I keep my feelings to myself of wanting to raize every last one to the ground. I am also aware that human nature being what it is, regardless to how many times religion or government is obliterated folk cannot wait to replace it with the same but different, so it would be a pointless and unending battle anyway.

 

You cannot sanatise the entire world so that nobody is ever offended by anything, anywhere, anytime, you would obliterate everything that sustains life before you achieved that. Compared to being killed or seriously injured, or being denied the right to earn a living and ending up begging on the streets because of the colour of ones skin, having your nose put out of joint slightly for a minute by the sight of a soft toy pales in to insignificance in comparison.  As some General or suchlike said at some past time, "sometimes you have to choose which battles to fight to win the war", or words to that effect. Obliterating Golliwogs from existence compeletly IMHO will not make one detectable difference to racism, and from where I'm seeing the attempts to do so going, they are far more likely to encourage and perpetrate greater racism than at present.

 

To be blunt, if anyone, regardless of colour, creed, religion or whatever, feels so "threatened" by nothing more than a certain design of ragdoll, that they cannot find within themselves a mechanism to ignore them, or learn to live with them, perhaps a few sessions of therapy would be of greater help to them than removing all trace of the object that affects them so. After all, treatments for sufferers of PTSD and phobias involve conditioning them to react less negatively to their personal triggers, not insist that all triggers are obliterated from anyplace they might be at any future time.

 

Oh, and about your Hitler doll in uniform giving the salute - they exist. Google is your friend, numerous hits. Am I offended by it? Nope, quite the opposite in fact. One glance at it and I burst out laughing as it just emphasised what a ludicrous and deluded little man he was.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Ghostrider

[Gibber]

To be blunt, if anyone, regardless of colour, creed, religion or whatever, feels so "threatened" by nothing more than a certain design of ragdoll, that they cannot find within themselves a mechanism to ignore them, or learn to live with them, perhaps a few sessions of therapy would be of greater help....

You see, at least some of us have the ability not to take life so seriously that we can't laugh at and poke fun at the stereotypes of ourselves, as we know how inaccurate and irrelevant they really are

 

From as's account the original complainant was 'threatened' more by the abusive reactions of Shetlanders living up to their stereotype.

 

Your ire here is a case in point that when these stereotypes are arguably true, you can't recognise as such and laugh at yourself but become more defensive and insular.  with attitude of 'what right does he have to come up here and tell us what we can and can't sell in our shops?' 

 

He has that right of complaint just as Mrs Leask has the right to sell dolls loaded with racist symbology.  Not being 'fae Shetland' or, of course, not being white doesn't deny him that right.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Gibber

[Ghostrider]

 

You see, at least some of us have the ability not to take life so seriously that we can't laugh at and poke fun at the stereotypes of ourselves, as we know how inaccurate and irrelevant they really are

 

From as's account the original complainant was 'threatened' more by the abusive reactions of Shetlanders living up to their stereotype.

 

 

Eh? I've offered no comment on the issue as refers to in over 18 months, it was all a bit wishy-washy and second hand back then, and became even more so when the originally linked etc material disappeared. To the point that I do not believe enough of it remains in the here and now to draw anything of meaningful value from it in to the current discussion revolving around Mr. Sissay.

 

I have only commented in the last few pages specific to issues generated by Mr. Sissay only, and I see no reason of value to involve anyone else's alleged experiences.

 

 

 

Your ire here is a case in point that when these stereotypes are arguably true, you can't recognise as such and laugh at yourself but become more defensive and insular.  with attitude of 'what right does he have to come up here and tell us what we can and can't sell in our shops?' 

 

He has that right of complaint just as Mrs Leask has the right to sell dolls loaded with racist symbology.  Not being 'fae Shetland' or, of course, not being white doesn't deny him that right.

 

 

Where have I ever said Mr. Sissay did not have the right to visit Shetland, hold an opinion about anything and everything he encountered here, and express that opinion whenever and however he sees fit? Quote me, so as there's no misunderstanding where you referenced this from.

 

You're, again, just choosing to put your own meaning on to what I've said, to best suit your own argument.

 

What I am arguing, and have only ever argued concerning Mr. Sissay is that his behaviour and actions during and after the fact call seriously in to question his motivation(s) for doing what he's done, and the honesty of his statements regarding anything and everything to do with the issue. To the point that his credibility and right to have his "complaint" taken seriously are both hovering around zero.

 

Bluntly, the way he's carried on I neither believe one word he's said, nor that his motivation is anything other than selfish personal gain. Whether he had a genuine grievance or not about the Golliwogs being on display/sale somewhere in it all it is impossible to know after the dog's dinner he's made of it.

[Gibber]

Where have I ever said Mr. Sissay did not have the right to visit Shetland, hold an opinion about anything and everything he encountered here, and express that opinion whenever and however he sees fit? Quote me, so as there's no misunderstanding where you referenced this from.

Its the usual bit of business

 

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.

which to me expresses the aforesaid insular and defensive attitude.