Are Golliwogs racist?

Nodin · 13-02-2013 8:46pm

0066ad wrote: »

Now I know you didn't read it, the incident your bolloxing about happened
in 2006.

You thought you knew what was in the link without even opening it

From what I posted -

For the record, the charity Parents and Children Together, which runs the two play groups at the centre of last week's outbreak, told the Press Association that "children at the two family centres sing a variety of descriptive words in the nursery rhyme to turn the song into an action rhyme. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc. This encourages the children to extend their vocabulary." .

From what you posted

Park Hill independent school takes children aged from three to seven. In 2006, there was a controversy when pre-school children attending two nurseries in Oxfordshire were taught another new version of the traditional rhyme, this time singing about Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep.
As with the latest incident, the Parents And Children Together charity which was running both nurseries insisted then that the move was made for educational reasons and not to protect the schools from accusations of racism.

The same crowd, the same story. These things surface every few years. You'll note that theres no truth whatsoever to the notion that it was changed because of fears of racism, so precisely why you posted is something of a mystery.

twinQuins · 13-02-2013 8:46pm

0066ad wrote: »

Already there https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/313119/Ssh-don-t-mention-black-in-Baa-Baa-Black-Sheep?comments=show-all

Teachers insisted the song had been changed merely as a way of teaching children phonics and not to remove any elements people could misconstrue as racist.

Maybe you should try reading your own links.

0066ad · 13-02-2013 8:52pm

Nodin wrote: »

From what I posted -

From what you posted

The same crowd, the same story. These things surface every few years. You'll note that theres no truth whatsoever to the notion that it was changed because of fears of racism, so precisely why you posted is something of a mystery.

My apologies had a major brain fart there.

sbsquarepants · 14-02-2013 11:17am

twinQuins wrote: »

Now then, given that, would you agree that Golliwoggs embody a racial stereotype of black people? Because that's all I'm arguing.

I sort of would!
Yes the're a caricature , yes they're black, but no they're not racist - they're cuddly toys for kids to play with. I couldn't be bothered searching one out online or anything, but if they still sold them in the shops i would most likely buy one for a young child. I think they look quite cool - i'd wear those trousers myself:D

14-02-2013 12:27pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I sort of would!
Yes the're a caricature , yes they're black, but no they're not racist - they're cuddly toys for kids to play with. I couldn't be bothered searching one out online or anything, but if they still sold them in the shops i would most likely buy one for a young child. I think they look quite cool - i'd wear those trousers myself:D

Why not buy one for yourself thus sparing your child any future blushes, I think there's a humorous/embarrassing scene involving the ownership of a 'Golliwog' in one of the episodes of 'Extras'
To have, in the past, innocently owned one without the knowledge of any racist connotation is one thing, to purchase one in 2013 knowing full well the divisive argument on its symbolism, would be an act of ostrich-like ignorance, or just plain old-fashioned ra.....

On a lighter note, you're one to talk about trousers, or as our American friends say - PANTS, which might even be a word to describe your post.

sbsquarepants · 14-02-2013 1:21pm

9959 wrote: »

Why not buy one for yourself thus sparing your child any future blushes, I think there's a humorous/embarrassing scene involving the ownership of a 'Golliwog' in one of the episodes of 'Extras'.

You gotta love extras

9959 wrote: »

To have, in the past, innocently owned one without the knowledge of any racist connotation is one thing, to purchase one in 2013 knowing full well the divisive argument on its symbolism, would be an act of ostrich-like ignorance, or just plain old-fashioned ra......

Maybe you misunderstand the word ignorance. I'm not burying my head in the sand whatsoever. What i'm doing is saying i disagree with your point of view, as i believe it to be wrong. I'm well aware of the "divisive argument" i'm just firmly on one side of it. That's not ignorance, that's opinion.
I know full well i'm not racist (i'm quite the egalitarian truth be told) - and that's really enough for me.
If i happen to find a particular toy cute, or a particular joke funny or whatever, that doesn't change who and what, i am. I'm not all that bothered about the world knowing my opinions, if you, or they, take me up wrong, then so be it.

9959 wrote: »

On a lighter note, you're one to talk about trousers, or as our American friends say - PANTS, which might even be a word to describe your post.

You have to admit though, they are snappy dressers those golliwogs:D

14-02-2013 5:15pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You gotta love extras

Maybe you misunderstand the word ignorance. I'm not burying my head in the sand whatsoever. What i'm doing is saying i disagree with your point of view, as i believe it to be wrong. I'm well aware of the "divisive argument" i'm just firmly on one side of it. That's not ignorance, that's opinion.
I know full well i'm not racist (i'm quite the egalitarian truth be told) - and that's really enough for me.
If i happen to find a particular toy cute, or a particular joke funny or whatever, that doesn't change who and what, i am. I'm not all that bothered about the world knowing my opinions, if you, or they, take me up wrong, then so be it.

You have to admit though, they are snappy dressers those golliwogs:D

Perhaps you're confusing being an 'egalitarian' with being a 'contrarian', for no true egalitarian would be - taking your rejection of ignorance as read - deliberately offensive to a section of the population for the sake of a culturally outmoded toy.

Having said that, your reply is refreshingly honest, planting your flag firmly in the ground, in opposition to consensual societal change.

By the way, you must live in a pineapple under the sea to believe that golliwogs are snappy dressers.
Do you ever go out, or indeed, come up for air?

pickarooney · 14-02-2013 5:21pm

Someone's going to come along claiming to be a Buddhist and wanting to wave a swastika around any minute now.

old hippy · 14-02-2013 6:59pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Someone's going to come along claiming to be a Buddhist and wanting to wave a swastika around any minute now.

On a thread of this calibre, with such illuminating insights and understandings of history, culture and context?

Boombastic · 14-02-2013 6:59pm

I'm a buddist, now look at my swastika, a golliwog just called me a cracker :mad:

:pac:

Rosy Posy · 15-02-2013 8:58am

So is the reason that they are supposed to be offensive because they are a caricature of a black person? Or is it because of historical context?

Have you ever seen a Bratz doll? Or a Barbie? They are gross caricatures and tbh I would never let my daughter own one because of the hideously unrealistic image of the female body that they represent, and because of their overtly sexualised clothing. I don't expose my daughter to these things because I believe them to be damaging to her perception of herself and of ideal womanhood.

By contrast I don't think that my daughter's gollywog is going to make her racist or to look at black people any differently. I chose it for her because it is a representation of a black person and I like to have ethnic diversity in my children's toys as in their daily life. I don't see how the gollywog is any more of a stereotype than any of the white dolls with their big blue eyes.

I think that people project their own sense of shame at the historical use of the gollywog as the 'bad guy' in children's stories on to what is in essence just a harmless toy. The real demon here is a history of sanctioned racism in society that has precious little to do with a child's toy.

This is just my opinion, as other posters stated, I would never attempt to speak for all non-white people (a racist idea in itself- who anywhere could claim to be the voice of an entire ethnicity- even Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama have their opponents within their own race).

sbsquarepants · 15-02-2013 11:31am

9959 wrote: »

Perhaps you're confusing being an 'egalitarian' with being a 'contrarian', for no true egalitarian would be - taking your rejection of ignorance as read - deliberately offensive to a section of the population for the sake of a culturally outmoded toy.

I'm not being deliberately offensive to anyone - but neither is it a burning need in me to be inoffensive. I try not be an asshole but if in the course of my daily life someone gets offended by something i do, then that's too bad (apparently you think i could try harder, but sure there's life for you) I would usually try to explain myself but at the end of the day if my explanation isn't sufficient then they'll just have to be offended. I can live with that, i'm not going to tip toe on eggshells - especially when it comes to something as trivial as cuddly toys! I got my girlfiend a horny devil teddy bear for valentines - should i not have in case it offended a christian?

9959 wrote: »

Having said that, your reply is refreshingly honest, planting your flag firmly in the ground, in opposition to consensual societal change.

I do try to be honest, and i'm not deliberately opposing anything - i just tend to think for myself and i find your problem with golliwogs to be quite ridiculous to be perfectly honest with you.

9959 wrote: »

By the way, you must live in a pineapple under the sea to believe that golliwogs are snappy dressers.
Do you ever go out, or indeed, come up for air?

No accounting for taste i suppose - those trousers kick ass 9959:D

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I don't see how the gollywog is any more of a stereotype than any of the white dolls with their big blue eyes.

You're bang on the money there Rosy - a lot of kids toys are caricatures - who cares?

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I think that people project their own sense of shame at the historical use of the gollywog as the 'bad guy' in children's stories on to what is in essence just a harmless toy. The real demon here is a history of sanctioned racism in society that has precious little to do with a child's toy..

.

Exactly - all your daughter sees is a black teddy bear (and a sartorially superior one at that, don't mind what 9959 tells you:D) - racism, slavery and oppression don't enter her mind at any stage when she's playing with it.

old hippy · 15-02-2013 1:22pm

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I would never attempt to speak for all non-white people (a racist idea in itself- who anywhere could claim to be the voice of an entire ethnicity- even Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama have their opponents within their own race).

We are all ethnic but the idea of calling people "non white" does feel racist, to me. As if everyone else should aspire to whiteness, like it's the dominant ethnicity?

Grand Moff Tarkin · 15-02-2013 1:26pm

So am i a racist for singing bah bah black sheep to my nephew??

old hippy · 15-02-2013 1:27pm

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

So am i a racist for singing bah bah black sheep to my nephew??

Yes. You're a monster :rolleyes:

sbsquarepants · 15-02-2013 1:39pm

old hippy wrote: »

We are all ethnic but the idea of calling people "non white" does feel racist, to me. As if everyone else should aspire to whiteness, like it's the dominant ethnicity?

That's just crazy! Some people are "non white" i'm non black myself amongst other things!
I'm a white man, if someone refers to me as a white man that is neither racist or sexist -it is merely descriptive and quite accurately descriptive at that. Similarly if i refer to someone as a black man or an asian woman, it's just a description.

old hippy · 15-02-2013 1:41pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's just crazy! Some people are "non white" i'm non black myself amongst other things!
I'm a white man, if someone refers to me as a white man that is neither racist or sexist -it is merely descriptive and quite accurately descriptive at that. Similarly if i refer to someone as a black man or an asian woman, it's just a description.

If someone refers to you as a white man, of course that's fine. Similarly if you refer to someone as black or Asian, that's also fine.

Read my post again.

15-02-2013 1:42pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not being deliberately offensive to anyone - but neither is it a burning need in me to be inoffensive. I try not be an asshole but if in the course of my daily life someone gets offended by something i do, then that's too bad (apparently you think i could try harder, but sure there's life for you) I would usually try to explain myself but at the end of the day if my explanation isn't sufficient then they'll just have to be offended. I can live with that, i'm not going to tip toe on eggshells - especially when it comes to something as trivial as cuddly toys! I got my girlfiend a horny devil teddy bear for valentines - should i not have in case it offended a christian?

I do try to be honest, and i'm not deliberately opposing anything - i just tend to think for myself and i find your problem with golliwogs to be quite ridiculous to be perfectly honest with you.

No accounting for taste i suppose - those trousers kick ass 9959:D

You're bang on the money there Rosy - a lot of kids toys are caricatures - who cares?

.

Exactly - all your daughter sees is a black teddy bear (and a sartorially superior one at that, don't mind what 9959 tells you:D) - racism, slavery and oppression don't enter her mind at any stage when she's playing with it.

Having "a burning need to be inoffensive" sounds like too much hard work, and not a little painful, I hope that most normal people wouldn't regard being inoffensive to people from different racial/ethnic groups as too onorous a task, believe me it's not, however if you deem it to be over burdensome, then so be it.

Regarding the 'horny devil teddy bear', as you said yourself, there's no accounting for taste, however, I don't know whether Christians are offended by such a thing, I suspect not, as the term 'horny devil' is generally accepted by all - save for the extremely prudish - as inoffensive slang for a male of any species with an inordinate libido, however, a HORNY JESUS TEDDY BEAR might not be accepted so readily by those of a Christian persuasion, we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

"I just tend to think for myself"

Don't think yourself unique in this regard, we all like to think that we all tend to think for ourselves, don't you think, or do you think otherwise, have a think about it.

"a lot of kids toys are caracitures - who cares?"

It think you've already established that you 'don't care' if you offend, it's why you don't that interests me.
A caricature, or an offensive racial stereotype, there's the rub, as in most matters of a similar nature, context is all.

For what it's worth, notwithstanding your deplorable taste in trousers, I find your posts to be well-written and humorous.

sbsquarepants · 15-02-2013 2:47pm

old hippy wrote: »

If someone refers to you as a white man, of course that's fine. Similarly if you refer to someone as black or Asian, that's also fine.

Read my post again.

I read it again, i still don't see the problem with the term "non white"

9959 wrote: »

Regarding the 'horny devil teddy bear', as you said yourself, there's no accounting for taste, however, I don't know whether Christians are offended by such a thing, I suspect not, as the term 'horny devil' is generally accepted by all - save for the extremely prudish - as inoffensive slang for a male of any species with an inordinate libido, however, a HORNY JESUS TEDDY BEAR might not be accepted so readily by those of a Christian persuasion, we'll just have to wait and see on that one..

See there's the thing. Why are the sensitivities of the extremely prudish not a concern, if the sensitivities of another group are? Why can their taking offence be brushed aside, but someone elses needs to be respected? At what point do we say x percentage of a given group feel this is offensive - therefore it is.
Also, Horny Jesus - this stuff could sell:D

9959 wrote: »

It think you've already established that you 'don't care' if you offend, it's why you don't that interests me.
A caricature, or an offensive racial stereotype, there's the rub, as in most matters of a similar nature, context is all.

It's not that i don't care if i offend, i do try not to. It's just i feel that on some issues people are just too damn sensitive. I mean who knew the world of cuddly toys was so fraught with danger for example! You can't worry about people taking offence over simple things like this because if you did you literaly could do no right - somebody, somewhere is always poised and waiting to take offence. Always.

9959 wrote: »

For what it's worth, notwithstanding your deplorable taste in trousers, I find your posts to be well-written and humorous.

I stand by my statement, those trousers are cool!

coffee_cake · 15-02-2013 2:58pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Someone's going to come along claiming to be a Buddhist and wanting to wave a swastika around any minute now.

Nah I'm alright on the swastika thing thanks

juan.kerr · 15-02-2013 3:02pm

So we aren't allowed say Bah Bah Black Sheep anymore?

juan.kerr · 15-02-2013 3:03pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Nah I'm alright on the swastika thing thanks

I read yesterday that the Swastika is a good luck in Finland.

Death and Taxes · 15-02-2013 3:05pm

juan.kerr wrote: »

So we aren't allowed say Bah Bah Black Sheep anymore?

Why? who exactly is stopping you?

Henlars67 · 15-02-2013 3:10pm

old hippy wrote: »

If someone refers to you as a white man, of course that's fine. Similarly if you refer to someone as black or Asian, that's also fine.

Read my post again.

there you go again, deciding what is and isn't acceptable.

It isn't up to you to decide that

juan.kerr · 15-02-2013 4:09pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Why? who exactly is stopping you?

So we can say it. Cool, thanks.

15-02-2013 5:50pm

sbsquarepants,
Edit.
Sorry about that, but I inadvertently cut into your post to which I replied below, so have decided to remove yours entirely in the interests of fairness to you.
Damn technology!
Hope you don't mind.

"why are the sensitivities of the extremely prudish not a concern"

They may well be to some on the margins, I wouldn't be too concerned, not by dint of their prudishness, which in some ways can be quaint, but by dint of the intentionally inserted adverb 'extremely'.

"at what point do we say x percentage of a group find this offensive"

What you're alluding to here is 'critical mass', my honest answer is I don't know exactly when, or where, in the dynamic of change/progress one can point the finger and say that's when such and such became unexceptable to do or say in the society in which we choose to live, but my hunch is that most of us only become aware that change has occurred when the dust has settled so to speak, this confusion can become particularly acute in a country such as Ireland where a hitherto homogenous people and culture are suddenly - in historical terms - confronted with the nuanced nomenclature and cultural shibboleths of a nascent multiethnic society.

Who knows, some people still refuse to use the word Chairperson when it's quite clearly a woman that they insist on addressing as 'Chairman', "political correctness gone mad" is the usual jaded retort of the obstinate.

You may 'view' the Golliwog as a charming doll whilst choosing to ignore the negative cultural resonance of the name alone, that's your decision, but please don't attempt to claim that any offence taken by some is petty or illusory.

Sure, on one level a doll is just a doll, an inanimate object incapable of causing any physical harm, but so, on the same level is a flag, it's the symbolism that's important.

Try waving a 'Swastika' in a synagogue and explaining, while so doing, that you just like the pattern and the oh so pretty colours.

We might be talking apples and oranges here, but we're still talking about the bitter fruit of predudice.

In conclusion, I feel I should adhere to the established protocol at this point and make a trousers gag, but I fear given time, like your arguments, they just won't hold up!

nlgbbbblth · 15-02-2013 9:15pm

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

So am i a racist for singing bah bah black sheep to my nephew??

No. You're just a prick for not reading the rest of the thread where it was clearly pointed out that:

1) it's not racist.
2) people who claim that they can't say "black" anymore are full of sh*t.

Banned

Pumpkinseeds · 15-02-2013 10:11pm

I had a golliwog as a child. It was a bloody creepy thing. I used to put it under things so that I didn't have to look at it. When did 'black' become a dirty word? People are afraid to say the word for fear of being labelled a racist. That kind of pc madness just leads to more intolerance than anything else.

15-02-2013 10:20pm

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I had a golliwog as a child. It was a bloody creepy thing. I used to put it under things so that I didn't have to look at it. When did 'black' become a dirty word? People are afraid to say the word for fear of being labelled a racist. That kind of pc madness just leads to more intolerance than anything else.

Personally I don't believe that 'black' is a dirty word, or one not to be uttered.
Have I missed something?

nlgbbbblth · 15-02-2013 10:23pm

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I had a golliwog as a child. It was a bloody creepy thing. I used to put it under things so that I didn't have to look at it. When did 'black' become a dirty word? People are afraid to say the word for fear of being labelled a racist. That kind of pc madness just leads to more intolerance than anything else.

BLACK WAS NEVER A DIRTY WORD

Are Golliwogs racist?

Comments