jaquelinehyde Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Unlinkedstudent -- I wish it was as simple as reclaiming them back from the racist fools but it's not that easy as the gollywog was born out of racism and ignorance. Again a quick look at the history of gollies will explain that clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 The doll question is the history and what it represents No, it's what people interpret what it represents - and interpretation can be used as a powerful weapon. I had a German Action Man as a child, full SS uniform - I don't remember thinking that I should then buy a whole load of Ken and Barbie dolls, gas them then burn them. I'm not for a minute suggesting racism doesn't exist, but it's about time we took a stance to all this extreme PC nonsense. And don't get me started on the dog from the Dambusters film... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 @ AT: Not necessarily disagreeing with any of that, although I would note that while having a place in certain circumstances, "Affirmative action" these days in some quarters is teetering on the edge of becoming as big a problem as the discrimination it was designed to help address. In organisations of a certain size, appointments aren't always made on the basis of "best candidate for the position", but as "2nd, 3rd whatever best for the position, but being as they're an Asian lesbian in a wheelchair we gotta take them to make the staff demographic numbers look better". See, I've heard this a lot when this subject has come up, but I have never actually been presented with a credible example of this ever happening, not one. Of course I'm completely open to examining any examples you may wish to provide... (But nothing from the Daily Heil or the Sun though, I don't rate anything published in those rags as evidence.) I think you're being rather disingenuous here. Evidence of any kind, either pro or anti is always going to be scant and difficult to secure, never mind verify. Apart from anything else, all evidence would be subjective rather than objective. Appointments tend to be made on the grounds of the prevailing opinion of a selectors, not verifiable facts. You tell me though, if you have an organisation which for whatever reason, be it wholly innocent or more sinister has low percentages of minorities, and in the face of legislation regarding such things, when they are in the process of making appointment(s), at least paying lip service to said legislation isn't among their higher priorrities when making their decision. An organisation with already "adequate" percentage representation of minorities onboard, need never allow the presence of that legislation to cross their mind. If the organisation with low percentages were in that position as a result of being racist, then fine, its good the legislation can jolt them to change, but if they achieved that state entirely innocently, being "forced" by leglslation to hire someone who wasn't quite teh best candidate for the post just to keep the powers that be off their back, is discrimination in itself. On topic though, where the "Golly" debate is concerned though, I have been trying to pay attention to what the "problem" is, and I'm struggling with it. Fair enough, I may not have seen or read the right things, but while I get that some portion of the population are alleging the doll and name is "offensive" to them, I'm yet to gather from anywhere how and why this is so. The doll represents a stereotypical caricature of black people of the type I thought we had consigned to the dustbin of history along with "The Black and White Minstrel Show" and Jim Davidson's "Chalky" character. What black stereotype would that be then? Personally I never really made the direct connection between the doll and black people until they started claiming the doll was racist. To be honest it surprised the sh*t outta me, as my take was thatI would have thought having a doll representing a coloured person was a good thing, as had there not been one, I would have expected coloured people to have complained they were being discriminated against as they could only obtain plae skin colour dolls for their kids. I don't think I was ever familiar with "Chalky", telly was never my thing, and Davidson I never rated as a comic. I never really got what the fuss was about the Minsterls was either, I thought them crap anyway, but compared to the likes of Alf Garnett scripts they were pretty light hearted and harmless in my book. Surely all dolls and "characters" are unhealthy stereotypes of one sort or other though. Is Barbie not the stereotypical impossibly thin stick insect, permenantly perfectly groomed, eternally youthful female that no woman can ever achieve, or Rab C. Nisbett the stereotypical Glasgow no hope drunk, the characters in Eastenders, Coronation Street or whatever composites of all the worst, weird and bizarre characters cities can cultivate. Isn't barbie as demeaning to women, or Nisbett as demeaning to Glaswegians, or soap casts as demeaning to city dwellers as a Golly is to coloured people? Fair enough, I am aware that the Golly has in certain places been hijacked by racial extremists, and that deserves to be shut right down. Its not the doll thats the issue as I see it though, the doll is as much of an innocent victim as the victimes of racism, its the people who hold the racist beliefs and utilise whatever means possible to further them that are the issue. Ban the doll, what does it achieve. The people with the attitude are still there, how long will it take them to seize upon something else tthat will piss their victims off as much, possibly more than the doll does right now. I'd give them a week tops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavi Ugl Posted March 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'm 99% sure it's the Magpie's Nest opposite the Queens Hotel and it's run by a lovely oldish Shetland couple. The truth is whatever the origin of Gollywog dolls, for the majority of people like myself it's nothing more than a little figure from the marmalade jars and for the likes of my little nephews and nieces a doll. It only becomes a "problem" and the old history of it dragged up when numpties like that letter writer and petition organiser make it a problem..... scottieboy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Foord Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 The truth is whatever the origin of Gollywog dolls, for the majority of people like myself it's nothing more than a little figure from the marmalade jars and for the likes of my little nephews and nieces a doll. It only becomes a "problem" .... when numpties like that letter writer and petition organiser make it a problem..... On the basis that there is not a 'round of applause' emoticon, then :thmbsup :thmbsup :thmbsup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Just when you think things can't sink any lower in Shetland I read this. I assumed reading that line you were going to be embarrassed to hear people in the community had said such things about people from different backgrounds, but it seems I was wrong. Oddly the quoted line is a good response to what you yourself have said. I think a lot of Shetlanders, especially young men, do often engage in "casual" racism I think it should be considered a problem. To cry "nonsense" when somebody from an ethnic background talks of abuse they've received, or to deflect to a silly side issue like golliwog dolls (which do have racist connotations) is laughably ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 The truth is whatever the origin of Gollywog dolls, for the majority of people like myself it's nothing more than a little figure from the marmalade jars and for the likes of my little nephews and nieces a doll. *NEWSFLASH* It's NOT about you! "for the majority of people like myself" Yes, you are the MAJORITY. You don't get discriminated against. So you don't get to decide for other people what is offensive and what isn't. It only becomes a "problem" and the old history of it dragged up when numpties like that letter writer and petition organiser make it a problem..... Are you seriously suggesting that minorities should simply shut-up because drawing attention to something offensive might upset members of the majority who are doing the offending? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeghead Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 So if I walk through a predominantly ethnic area and get called a 'whitey / insert other derogatory names here' and then I see a child of ethnic decent playing with a white doll/toy, I'd be prefectly within my civil rights to go to the police and have them remove all the 'whitey' propaganda from the local shops/windows/childrens toy baskets, as by alleged definition, it's racist? I'd get laughed the hell out of town. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, it exists everywhere, has done for millennia. But the fact you get people pro-actively out looking for issues to raise and claim are for racist intent, makes me think of them as nothing but a do-gooder with too much free time on thier hands. I never saw a problem with the gollywogs on the jars of marmalade, I dont see a problem with white/black/yellow/green/blue/purple kids toys, or with a countries national flag being displayed in someone's window. I don't see myself as racist either. If you want to look for a proper racist, go petition about the Gaddafi's, Saddam's , David Cameron's and George Bush's of this world. They in my book are but a few of the most racist people I've came across in my life. And don't forget, race isn't just about colour. rac·ism (rszm)n.1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.racist adj. & n. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 ^ I think you'll find that the majority he's referring to are people who can determine for themselves what's right and what's wrong without searching for something that someone somewhere may take offence at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Honestly! Grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/11729239.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dratsy Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 *NEWSFLASH* It's NOT about you! "for the majority of people like myself" Yes, you are the MAJORITY. You don't get discriminated against. So you don't get to decide for other people what is offensive and what isn't. Ah how wrong you are AT history shows time and time again that the majority do decide it is called democracy (and when that does not work WAR), or do you not believe in democracy, burning books is not far off if you get your way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. That's why we have things like Constitutions, Bills of Rights, Independent Court systems, Human Rights Legislation, Checks and Balances, so that the majority can't arbitrarily trample over the rights of minorities at the whim of the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 *NEWSFLASH* It's NOT about you! "for the majority of people like myself" Yes, you are the MAJORITY. You don't get discriminated against. So you don't get to decide for other people what is offensive and what isn't. Ah how wrong you are AT history shows time and time again that the majority do decide it is called democracy (and when that does not work WAR), or do you not believe in democracy, burning books is not far off if you get your way So, on you analogy, if you have 10 folks in a workshop and one is deformed and the other 9 think it is OK to continually highlight this, even though it is upsetting the one, it is OK because the majority have dictated this to be the case and the one should not be upset and go hay ho. Your loosing credit there my Friend of the Earth. Our history comes from dominating other races, enslaving them in various guises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyingram Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 I had a gollywog when i was little, whats all the fuss about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.