Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[Ghostrider]

^ Yes, as already fully explained in reply #436, defensive and insular against lying, duplicitous, fly by night individuals, especially those orchestrating situations which would not otherwise exist to hijack for their own selfish personal benefit.

 

Yes, the individual in question this time is coloured, so what? It wouldn't have mattered what colour, race or creed he was, I'd have said the same as I have regardless, and did when the issue that spawned this thread initially arose. The only possible advantage the issue involving Mr. Sissay could have had was that as a coloured person his input could have had greater credence and validity than that of a non-coloured person. Unfortunately for everyone he threw that advantage away when he chose to follow the route and actions he took, which destroyed completely the reliability and credibility of his input.

 

If you continue as you have this far, of blinkeredly only focusing on his appearance and wholly ignoring all other contributory factors in this issue, you will always see it as a race issue. Please try and set aside your obsession that if a minority of any sort is involved in a situation, that there has to be discrimination against them involved for no other reason than they are part of a minority, and review all of the information relevant to the issue.

[Mattie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLve5nIsTBI

Osama Bin Laden Doll..

[Mattie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30g6ybthV2E

Saddam Hussein doll..

[madmandy]

http://www.galigirls.com/wrapper.php?gpage=faq.html     jewish dolls for jewish girls. 

 

http://www.islam4children.com/index.php?action=item&substart=0&id=480

 

http://www.blackbeautydolls.com/

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=golly+dolls&tag=mh0a9-21&index=toys&hvadid=21983832&ref=pd_sl_8ht41znjn9_e

 

 

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A7x9QXh6lUJSeHsAAYJLBQx.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcxNzAwMwRfcgMyBGJjawM5YzNkZGU1OTQzdmgxJTI2YiUzRDQlMjZkJTNERUprQWZJMXBZRUk5azdNaGptNUpnYnpYUy44VWxibWU2NGMtJTI2cyUzRDVjJTI2aSUzRHg1bGlZNTZzOER1U1JHeWxCZWxtBGNzcmNwdmlkA0h1OENQVmY0Y0FpV0RhMXhVa0guSVE4VlZwb3hTMUpDbFhvQUN6cDIEZnIDeWZwLXQtNzAyBGZyMgNzYS1ncARncHJpZAN6YU1VYkdOU1J5eTNEcmZIY1dOU1JBBG5fcnNsdAMxMARuX3N1Z2cDMwRvcmlnaW4DdWsuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMQRwcXN0cgNzY290dGlzaCBkb2xscwRwcXN0cmwDMTQEcXN0cmwDMTQEcXVlcnkDc2NvdHRpc2ggZG9sbHMEdF9zdG1wAzEzODAwOTU0NDM3MTEEdnRlc3RpZANVS0MwMDI-?p=scottish+dolls&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-702&rd=r1

 

do you get it yet....they are dolls.  They are not racist.  They are meeting a market need or they would not sell. Are we going to complain about all the above  because we are not Jewish/black/muslim or what ever.  Get over it.

She also sells trolls.  Have the trowies objected to these.  Is there a focus group to protect their interests?  Since they (most likely) don't speak English have attempts been made to canvas their opinion on happy smiling human dressed trolls being offered for sale?  Important issues.

[as]

seems you are certainly not contributing anything new to the debate. (or relevant)

[Gibber]

If you continue as you have this far, of blinkeredly only focusing on his appearance and wholly ignoring all other contributory factors in this issue, you will always see it as a race issue. Please try and set aside your obsession that if a minority of any sort is involved in a situation, that there has to be discrimination against them involved for no other reason than they are part of a minority, and review all of the information relevant to the issue.

 

I take issue with those arguing that all historical negative racial connotations associated with an object don't actually exist. That's the core issue for me and it isn't necessarily discriminatory to argue the point that these symbols aren't attached.  In the case of gollywogs on sale I would criticise the selling of a racist symbol more than the way somebody complained about it (within reason of course).  If like Madmandy you don't see how dolls can ever have any negative racial connotations then the defence of a local Isles shopkeeper from a 'coloured' man from the mainland, deluded enough to think that gollywogs are offensive due to the racist connotations that historians, many lay-people and the BNP mistakenly attribute to them, would be paramount.

[unlinkedstudent]

I was gobsmacked yesterday.  I spoke to one of my most 'right on', 'politically correct' friends on the other side of the pond.  To cut to the chase, he didn't know what 'golly' was.  What's more, he didn't know what a golliwog was either.  Golly gosh!

[Gibber]

Does he know what a wog is?

[JustMe]

Does he know what a wog is?

I understand that the word comes from Western Oriental Gentleman in which case the usage must have changed if it now includes Afro Caribbean people. 

[Gibber]

So why are you assuming it means Afro Caribbean people now? 

 

Nobody has mentioned any connection between wog and afro caribbean as yet.

 

Could it be you do know that this is a derogatory term for dark skinned people and are just pretending it has another less offensive usage?

Edited September 25, 2013 by Gibber

[as]

I take issue with those arguing that all historical negative racial connotations associated with an object don't actually exist. That's the core issue for me

 

I completely agree with Gibber's above statement.

 

Madmandy, I have no problem whatsoever if shops sell dolls depicting other races. Be it white, black, inbetween etc skin coloured dolls or dolls of people of different religious persuasions. In fact, I think it is a good thing. My mother handmade dolls for me and my sister, mine was a japanese girl and my sister's a native american indian girl. They were much loved toys and evoked a curiousity of foreign cultures.

 

The problem is that the particular "look" of the Gollywog is deliberate and exaggerated. That distinctive look and the very name is still manufactured and marketed today. The historical racist connections can just not be denied, explained away or swept under the carpet. It stays with the product. It is iconic. I would (glumsily, I fear) compare it to let's say a religious symbol: We all know what the christian cross or jewish star looks like and we associate it immediately with those religions, not just a geometrical shape. The destinct look of the Gollywog has a similar effect on many people, although some of you will probably disagree.

 

Had the shop sold black dolls like the ones in your link, I very much doubt that Mr.Sissay (or indeed the complainant who originally sparked this debate) would have reacted the way he did. It was the Gollywog he took objection to. But not becasue it is "just a doll", but because for what the doll stands as a symbol. 

 

In the same way I also find dolls deliberately depicting Hitler, Bin Laden etc. absolutely unacceptable. Not becasue they are dolls or children's toys, but becasue these items (to my mind anyway) are used to glorify (sorry, can't think of a better word at the mo to express myself) those characters. Making a children's toy out of them kind of "deminishes" their gastly deeds and gives them celebrity status. Plus it is an unbelievable insult to the memory and suffering of millions of people.

 

It is shocking to see that there seems to be a market for these products and people are making money by manufacturing and selling them. What kind of parent would think it appropiate to allow their child to play (or collect) Hitler or Bin Laden dolls?  What does it teach them about history? And what is the parent's grasp of history themselves?

 

There have been comments in these pages that we need to move on from history and leave the unsavoury connections behind. I am not sure if that would be the right approach. History needs to be kept alive, it must not be forgotten. It must not be allowed to repeat itself. How is the next generation supposed to learn from previous generations mistakes, if we do not give them all information, including on the "toys" we let them play with? Be it Gollywog, Hitler or Bin Laden etc , it is not "just a doll" or a "cool" toy. (I would include toy firearms in that list.)

 

 Guys, I really don't know what else to say on the subject. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

 

But is this seriously a reason to resort to personal insults and name calling and threats as we have read on here, the Shetland Times and Mr. Sissay's blog and fb page?? I don't agree with the way he has gone about this, but I equally don't agree with the responses.

[unlinkedstudent]

@AS - There's a difference in saying that an object is racist and the next minute saying that there are racial connotations to an object.

 

What's that old saying?  "Two wrongs don't make a right".  Is it fair to impose someone else's history or another country's history on the citizens of another?  Or should one try to wipe out all the negatives so that the good shines through?  If you find the golliwog offensive that is your right and your perogative.  It is equally my right to hold onto my cherished memories and whilst acknowledging that some may be offended by a golliwog, I don't have to be and I don't have to have forced upon me that my good memories are insignificant because of someone's bad memories and associations with a golliwog.

 

"The problem is that the particular "look" of the Gollywog is deliberate and exaggerated. That distinctive look and the very name is still manufactured and marketed today. The historical racist connections can just not be denied, explained away or swept under the carpet. It stays with the product. It is iconic. I would (glumsily, I fear) compare it to let's say a religious symbol: We all know what the christian cross or jewish star looks like and we associate it immediately with those religions, not just a geometrical shape. The destinct look of the Gollywog has a similar effect on many people, although some of you will probably disagree."

 

Where is your proof that the particular "look" of the golliwog is deliberate and exaggerated?  You could say the same for all toy dolls sold at Halloween and other times of the year depicting witches.  Do Wiccans go around demanding that toys of witches should be banned, what with their exaggerated noses and 'old hag' looks?  Yet witches were brutally murdered.  I personally don't, because I'll hold onto the fact that I can accept that children can get some pleasure out of such a toy and if asked about the history of witches, I can tell them.  I can tell them the meaning of the word 'wiccan' and likewise, other people can explain their take and definitions on any other object going.

 

Knowledge is subjective.  You might see a black car with an orange light and four wheels whereas I may see a London taxi; neither of us is wrong.  But for people to state that we should adopt their epistemological stances - well hell, nope.

Edited September 25, 2013 by unlinkedstudent

[JustMe]

So why are you assuming it means Afro Caribbean people now? 

 

Nobody has mentioned any connection between wog and afro caribbean as yet.

 

Could it be you do know that this is a derogatory term for dark skinned people and are just pretending it has another less offensive usage?

Well yes, at some stage the expression "WOG" changed from meaning people from Asia to talking about Afro Caribbean people.  And certainly a Gollywog does not look Asian.

 

Now let me make my views clear.  I HATE all sort of discriminatory "isms"  and of course racism is one of the worst since people cannot easily hide their racial origins and indeed they should not have to.  Just do not think that a little shop selling a traditional toy from my youth is really so bad in the greater scheme of things.

[as]

Apologies for delayed reply, but my computer is seriously freezing up.

Well, you see, as I have been trying to say earlier:

 

it is not illegal to manufactuer or sell Gollywogs, Hitler, Bin Laden/ whatever dolls/ objects. So people are within their rights to buy/ cheerish/ or even burn/ destroy said items.

 

I really do not think that I am forcing my opinion on you or anybody else. If these things might be made illegal at some point than I would hope it is based on a decision made by the majority. In the meantime you are entitled to worship Gollywogs and I am entitled to despise them.   I don't quite get why you feel the need to get so defensive and agitated, there's precious little chance Gollywogs, Hitler dolls etc are being made illegal any day soon. Plenty of shopping and collecting oppo await the serious collector.

 

 

With regards to "proof" that Gollywogs are made to look a certain way: read through the various links provided over the last 10 pages. Do we honestly have to keep crossreferencing in every little post until the cows come home? We keep going on and on in the same circles and wear out the carpet. What use is there to this?

 

I am afraid, but I find the idea odd that we would impose one country's experiences and history on another. Surely we are citizens of one world. For me it is more a question of morals and right and wrong. I would find it quite worrying if Hitler's or Bin Laden's or racist actions would be viewed as worth preserving in any country.

 

I certainly would not wish to wipe out negatives, that is why I think it is important to keep the entire history of Gollywogs alive and not just one aspect. So I am happy for people to keep their fond memories, but not to deny the other darker aspect of gollywogs. Do you seriously disregard that aspect of Gollywogs?

 

With regards to halloween witches: I am not religious whatsoever, so they are meaningless  to me, like trows. If people have to have an imaginary friend in the sky (or where ever) that is their business. Far too much blood has been spilled needlessly in the name of religion, but that's an entirely seperate thread.

 

I would hope that children would ask about the origins and meanings and background of the toys they play with. Let's just hope the parents can give the honest answers covering all angles, not just their preferred version.....

 

We are never going to see eye to eye on this, are we?  Still the apologists come  out of the woodwork and jump on anybody who dares voice a different opinion. It's not as if we are in the majority and a threat to your Gollywogs, are we? Do you really feel so threatened by a handful of voices on this forum that hold a contrary view to your own? Honestly, it is quite funny.

[Gibber]

 

Well yes, at some stage the expression "WOG" changed from meaning people from Asia to talking about Afro Caribbean people.  And certainly a Gollywog does not look Asian.

 

Now let me make my views clear.  I HATE all sort of discriminatory "isms"  and of course racism is one of the worst since people cannot easily hide their racial origins and indeed they should not have to.  Just do not think that a little shop selling a traditional toy from my youth is really so bad in the greater scheme of things.

 

So wog is an offensive term for a black person (even if the meaning has changed as meanings of words often do) and calling a black person a wog would be bad.

 

Would calling a black person a gollywog be bad?

 

Would calling a black person a gollynig**r be bad?