Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[Ghostrider]

Not true, I gave examples that account for being offended and choosing not to announce it. 

 

As I said, possibilities which could lead to a different conclusion, but as there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest any have basis in anything but supposition/fantasy land, they lead to nothing whatsoever until and unless any evidence to support becomes available.

 

Botton line, red herrings without a scrap of credibility.

 

Ah, yes. 'fraid I gotta take away this nice juicy bone you've been going to town on and enjoying so much.

 

 

To say

 

"....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."

 

The inserts in square brackets are, as you know, your own, and while they may not be incorrect in and of themselves, you have chosen to disregard and omit much of teh overall piece that doesn't suit your argument, and as a result have been pushing a meaning for this passage which it does not contain.

 

You will notice it contains one highly relevant word which you seem to have "missed" completely.... "Character" - Well, let us look at Mr Sissay's character during and subsequent to his visit to Shetland. He visits a small shop on Commercial Street, while there he is by all accounts polite, friendly and respectful and the same is afforded him in return, it seems to have been a positive encounter all round. Yet, once back on his own turf he launches in to an attack slating (and insulting) the shop owner, and one of the stock lines, which is the polar opposite of everything he said and did while there in person.

 

At this point we can already deduce that this man is a liar without credibility, as he has peddled two wholly contradictory versions of what his beliefs and opinions are, His reason for this (he currently claims) is given as some psychobabble few but himself can comprehend. The facts are, this was an apparently fit and healthy man in his forties, who is well used to making full use of the English language and with public speaking, claims that for whatever reason he felt "unable" to confront a seventy year old woman in a public space and calmly, respectfully and politely discuss an issue (he claims he has/had). And he expects folk to believe him....If anyone does believe him I'd say his story says a whole lot more about him, none of it good, than it says about either the woman or her stock line.

 

Leaving that aside, *if* he really had a genuine greivance or concerns, and there really was some genuine reason why a civilised discussion with the shop owner simply couldn't work, he had many far more effective methods of addressing it than the one he chose. He was, I believe in Shetland as a guest of Shetland Arts, he could have voiced his concerns to his hosts. He didn't as far as we know. He could have contacted the Retailers Association/Town Centre Association/Living Lerwick or whatever they are, he could have contacted the Lerwick Community Council or the SIC, he could have made a complaint at the Police Station if he felt racism was being promoted, he did none of these as far as we know. He could have written to any or all of the local media, if he did they have neither published it nor admit receiving it. Dammit, he could have even come on Shetlink and discussed it with everybody here.....on second thoughts, that might not necessarily have been the most productive of avenues.

 

Instead, he chose to wait until he was safely back home hiding behind his own monitor and keyboard before launching a suprise assault via webpage that he held full control of, and the majority of visitors to were most likely his fans thereby minimising dissent/complaint and maximising blind acceptance of "the word".

 

So, in Mr. Sissay's world standing up and acting out a role where every word uttered is a lie (in other circumstances his actions would have had him branded a conman or scammer), is fine and dandy. Not in my world it ain't. On the stage its expected, among strangers in the real world, its unethical and often criminal. To launch an attack from a great distance while behind heavy cover, especially when the attacker is by all appearances the superior force and when there is no known valid reason not to have a face to face encounter, is generally considered un-necessarily cowardly. Then to ignore all the official channels for addressing such concerns, and the outlets which would have given him maximum coverage where it mattered most, and instead choosing to voice them on a previously largely unheard of in Shetland blog page where every word was most likely to be swallowed unquestionably hook, line and sinker by "the faithful" smacks of having more to do with a selfish self-serving publicity stunt, and very much less to do with supposedly "righting" some sort of "wrong" against all his "brothers and sisters".

 

Yes, I'm well aware some will argue that Mr. Sissay's actions *should*  be overlooked, as "the means justify the ends". I however couldn't disagree more strongly, to retain credibility and integrity for a complaint of any sort, it is necessary for the complainer to retain the highest possible moral ground they can, as once they lower themselves to the level, or below that of the subject of their complaint they have neither credibility nor integrity left. As I see it, Mr. Sissay's actions in this issue sink him far further in to the immoral mire than the actions of the shop owner does, even if there is any grain of truth in Mr. Sissay being offended by her selling Golliwogs (and I remain unconvinced at this stage that he was in the slightest bothered by them - rather that he saw a publicity opportunity), or any other coloured person for that matter.

 

If someone directly affected were to politely and respectfilly present a well founded verifiable case as to why these dolls are so offensive, then pursue it through appropriate and effective channels, I will respect and listen to what is said, and may well agree with what they have to say. However, when it comes to some virtually unknown writer who is parachuted in for five minutes, un-necessarily using every devious and dubious means at their disposal while here, then jumping and shouting long after they've gone, "I say it, I say it, so it must be true, you must do as I tell you" which is doing them more personal gain good than its helping anyone else, I will and am treating it with the complete disregard and contempt it has earned.

[Mattie]

 

just to point out that my account was not anecdotal.

 

Is there corroboration anywhere?  It might put to bed some of the views being expressed here.

 

Off to bed with my Robertson's jam sandwich!!

Who gives a turd anymore listening to ramblings about Golliwogs?

Yawn

[Mattie]

There are more important things in the world!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24199941

[paulb]

gibber they also sell these should these be banned as well

http://www.buyexcalibur.co.uk/index.php?act=viewCat&catId=7

 

ok is some local; is offended by the ladies display then the police has the power to force its removal. its been done else where.

[trowie246]

There are 974 comments on the guardian website on Lemn Sissay's article and I've read them all.  The vast majority do not take Lemn Sissay's view that golly dolls are racist,  this includes a hand full of people who have identified themselves as black.

 

If the majority of black people find these dolls offensive now is their chance to speak up and speak out but so far I'm just not seeing it.

 

I can only presume that the vast majority really don't care one way or another.

Edited September 23, 2013 by trowie246

[owre-weel]

just to point out that my account was not anecdotal.

 

 

also, the Gollywogs are made in England, "imported" to Shetland - yes. but manufactured in England.

 

The shopkeeper will have been fully aware of the mayhem those blasted things caused when the petition started, yet she still insists on selling them. So yes, she has made that conscious decision and therefore should not be surprised if she gets criticised for it. Hardly a reason to shut the shop though.

 

A lot here has been mentioned about the "innocent childhood memories of collecting Gollywogs/ badges etc". But for non british people (like me for example) who have not been "brought up" with Gollywogs and all this "innocence" that is apparently so fondly remembered, it is a slightly different story. I do not share that part of british culture, instead I see Gollywogs for what they really are and find it hard to understand that the obvious historical rascist origins are so easily ignored and explained away. Pretending "It's just a doll" is closing our eyes to history.

Just because you don't share that part of British culture, does not mean that those who do should have to alter their memories of a much loved toy that they in no way associated with racism. Why should you tell me what I "apparently" should think about Gollys.

 

I agree that in some origins they have been used in a negative context and that is never acceptable, but does this mean that everything that could have a negative context for some should be denied to others ? If we go down that road we will be told we can't own a bulldog, because it's a symbol of the BNP and therefore to have fond memories of one, suggests we in some way support their views.

[owre-weel]

 

The fear is, Shetland has a problem with race relations, alas, that is now public and very world wide. I remember comments being made about an Asian family who lived in Shetland many years ago.

 

Fixing the issue would have been far more productive than defending a persons right to sell imported goods for sale along the high street known to have issues attached to them.

 

If you want to bang the Shetland drum, why are these imports on sale and not Shetland crafts persons creating their own?

Do you remember any comments about white families Pete? Not the first time you highlight an apparent racist issue in Shetland, it makes me wonder what your agenda is. Yes this is very public, but I think you are out of touch as usual. Read the comments to the issue in the guardian.

 

Fixing the issue? You say that as if you could swipe your magic wand and wow! It's fixed. Get real. Perhaps some open face to face adult discussion at the beginning would have stopped it getting this far, but I somehow feel this was not in Mr Sissays agenda.

 

Perhaps a local craft person will identify a gap in the market. Of course they would make them in all colours, shapes and sizes.

 

Pete when I read your posts on this thread, you seem more interested in having issues with others on here than paying attention to what's actually going on, alas!

[as]

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.....

[owre-weel]

AS

 

I don't think I have read anywhere in this tread that people don't have the right to an opinion or to be offended, quite the opposite. Both sides of the argument obviously feel their views are important and quite rightly so.

 

Your right, Hitler dolls giving the nazi salute, would offend me personally, but I accept that for many, it would not be an issue. The way I look at it is I would make a choice whether to use a shop selling these or not.

 

I was offended many years ago when a well known and respected local shop started selling products which were obviously used for making joints for smoking, and although not illegal, I questioned this at the time to be told, the door is there if your not happy. This was after many years of shopping there. The result was I have never shopped there since, although not because of the product, but because my custom obviously meant so little to the owner.

 

We can all voice our opinions and vote with our feet, but I agree there are always more than one side to any issue.

 

In my opinion, where this all went wrong was the way Mr Sissay went around this. Had he been more up front and less attacking, he may have found people would be more sympathetic to his concerns.

[Gibber]

GR

 

To jump to the conclusion that nobody is offended by golliwogs on sale in Shetland because you are unaware of any complaints (or fuss as you put it) is wilful ignorance. It's supposition to think that a genuine case of upset at an object historically loaded with racist meaning can only be verified by your knowledge of, or public awareness of complaint(s).

 

You have the complaint of LS and you also have as's post above as evidence of offence as well as a number of people here taking issue who may not be personally upset. You've tried to dismiss LS's upset by criticising his character and along with that you've also generalised 'coloured' people as a group who if they share what you regard as LS's negative character traits, we [non-coloured Shetlanders, I assume], can do without them.

 

What's wrong with you?

[bruckbox]

AMEN....

[Infiltrator]

AS quote (how come I can't get the quote to work in this new fangled forum tool thingie?)

 

'But what kind of doll would it take to make you offended?'

 

 

 

None whatsoever, a doll is a doll, end of.

 

It's how the doll/toy/item is used that creates the problem, as far as I can remember in this thread, the dolls have never been used in a way that would suggest they're anything other than a decorative item or plaything. 

 

However, had someone bought one and chased LS along commercial street waving it, that would be a different story.

 

It really is about time someone locked this thread, it's going nowhere.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Infiltrator

[unlinkedstudent]

Gibber, you say "an object historically loaded with racist meaning" - if this thread has demonstrated anything, it is that in the USA (according to Wikipedia) the gollywog "perhaps" (the word used in the article) had racial overtones, and again other articles referring to both good and bad in children's books ... but with the main associations being related to the marmalade jars which did not, to many, have negative racial overtones (even Lemne states himself he collected the ornaments as a child).  Which do we adopt, or are we not allowed our own historical references and preferences?  We have and own our individual her story/history.

 

Then you, yourself, introduced the negative racial association with the BNP - yes, some may have already been aware of it but I personally wasn't - so you've just introduced a racial element where there was none previously known to some people.

 

Let's talk hypothetically here.  Say I had a collection of extremely graphic sketches portraying nude women on display.  Some men and women might be offended by them.  Say the vicar and his wife were coming round for tea (not likely but hey, we're talking hypothetically).  So I'd take the sketches down whilst the vicar and his wife attended for tea.

 

But should I not have bought those graphic sketches simply because the vicar and his wife would be offended by them?  No.

 

ShetlandPeat commented that anything with the BNP on it should be withdrawn from sale.  I detest the BNP.  Whether we like it or not, they are a political party.  Look at the time when Sinn Fein were censored on the news - did that do anyone any good?

 

Everyone is entitled to be offended by whatever offends them ... but it's very rocky ground IMHO when it is dictated that everyone must be offended by the same things.

Edited September 23, 2013 by unlinkedstudent

[shetlandpeat]

I am not intending that folk should take a similar or same viewpoint as myself, there does however have to be a certain respect for others to have differing views, (this is why I think those who use the "block" facility of this forum are worse than they accuse the blockee of being)  and of course this will depend on personal experiences and upbringing.

I have lived in amongst other races, I have witness racism at its worse and my self have been subject to racist comments and actions.

If Shetland is going to invite worldly folk to its shores, then comes with them is a world of thoughts.

[Gibber]

Everyone is entitled to be offended by whatever offends them ... but it's very rocky ground IMHO when it is dictated that everyone must be offended by the same things.

 

I'm not saying that everyone should be offended by the same things.  The twisted opposite of this that GR is saying; that nobody can be offended by gollywogs on sale until he is aware of a significant fuss being made by someone with the type of character he personally approves is also not what should be taken from this.

 

If you're going to hide your porn stash when the vicar comes round wouldn't the equivalent be the shopkeeper keeping her gollywogs from public view and selling them on request to...

 

1 Those either unoffended by the dolls and/or ignorant of the racial symbolism

 

and

 

2 People wishing to signify their racist views with a known racist symbol?

 

That way, those like yourself who are ignorant to the racist connotations can get your weekly gollywog shopping done, racists can have their iconographic based freedoms of expression protected (phew!), the passing Shetland public of whatever hue won't have to see them in the shop unless they choose to and tourists won't be standing open mouthed at gollywogs on sale thinking that Shetland is populated by yokel carrot crunchers.  And of course Mrs Leask will still be able to sell them. 

Edited September 23, 2013 by Gibber