Whilst shopping at the dulwich fair on goose green today... (Lounged)

[huncamunca]

Coke ? In Tintins " red sea sharks" , slaves are referred to by the dastardly slave traders as coke...

[mockney piers]

I meant the powdery variety tbh

[Willard]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> binary_star Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> I'm still not sure what the Dagenham reference was

> all about, are

> > they known for their racism or something?)

>

Weeping Jesus.....

Here you go: bbc news

[binary_star]

You're right MP Golliwogs can't be racist, but as racist caricatures, I think it's right that the stallholder was challenged. I really think an adult in 2011 should be more aware, but if we give her the benefit of the doubt, naivety as an excuse can only be used the once.

As for imperial Romans or Barbary pirates, or any other enslavers we can think about, where's the reasoning behind bringing attention to these other slave trades when talking about selling Golliwogs? The minstrel caricature (which the doll is based on) perpetuated only one racial stereotype - the black plantation slaves during the era of minstrel shows. It's a doll of a white man in "blackface", I don't understand why people would defend it - because other slave trades we worse??

I am now pondering why it's been so easy for me to "move on" from those ancestral white/imperial Rome/current European slave caricatures? I suppose, people aren't selling dolls at my local fair that are based on taking the piss out of it for a start, are they??? Or are they? (The Gollihonk or whatever it was doesn't count, that's clearly based on the Golliwog).

Current slavery, in my opinion, is a separate issue (as was white guilt, to be fair).

[binary_star]

Willard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> binary_star Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > binary_star Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > I'm still not sure what the Dagenham reference

> was

> > all about, are

> > > they known for their racism or something?)

> >

>

>

> Weeping Jesus.....

>

> Here you go: bbc news

You needn't have bothered (see my previous post), but thanks all the same - I'll be sure to remember you for having a finger on the pulse of the BNP's gains ;)

[Willard]

binary_star Wrote:

> You needn't have bothered (see my previous post),

> but thanks all the same - I'll be sure to remember

> you for having a finger on the pulse of the BNP's

> gains ;)

......no not really, just a better grasp of history than you. The article relates to 2006.

[Willard]

Dully wrote:

Do I think it is offensive to have a toy that depicts a black person as pet and play thing specifically within the setting of a slave?

Binary wrote:

It's a doll of a white man in "blackface"

So which one is it?

[mockney piers]

I didn't bring any of it up, I was merely pointing out inaccuracies in previous posts.

In fact I offered no judgements at all.

Maybe once is enough, but I'm sure she won't do it again judging by the reported reaction. So we're really not dealing with some lynchian undercurrent here, but an honest mistake which has been corrected. Bravo OP.

Meaning move on. As in this topic. No wider judgement about who should or shouldn't move on, just the rather enclosed loop this thread had become. I was attempting, light-heartedly to cut the gordian knot.

I do believe however that modern human trafficking, drug trafficking and indentured labour (most of which produces goods for the west's high streets/back streets) is genuinely the most important concern, but rightly perhaps for another thread.

[binary_star]

In my opinion both. It's a caricature (of a blackface minstrel) of a caricature (of plantation slave stereotypes).

Willard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dully wrote:

>

> Do I think it is offensive to have a toy that

> depicts a black person as pet and play thing

> specifically within the setting of a slave?

>

> Binary wrote:

>

> It's a doll of a white man in "blackface"

>

>

> So which one is it?

Edited for clarity.

[Sue]

Willard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> binary_star Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > binary_star Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > I'm still not sure what the Dagenham reference

> was

> > all about, are

> > > they known for their racism or something?)

> >

>

>

> Weeping Jesus.....

>

> Here you go: bbc news

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Actually, that link is relating to very old news.

At the last local election the BNP were thrashed in Barking and Dagenham.

I was one of the people leafleting crucial areas as part of the Hope not Hate campaign, which was totally successful in its aims of persuading residents not to vote BNP.

So I don't think the Dagenham reference is valid any more.

[binary_star]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't accept that golliwogs are manufactured for

> racist reasons, purchased for racist reasons and

> played with adored by children for racist reasons.

Me neither. My nursery had one that I liked to play with as a child. Racist child? Don't think so. Child playing with racist caricature? Yes. I also used to go to the "paki" shop and the "chinky", but at some point, somebody - a friend, teacher, relative, I don't recall - enlightened me to the fact that these were offensive racial slurs, so I stopped using them. Some people would carry on, giving the excuse "it's just an abbreviation of Pakistani, much like Scot is of Scottish", or "it's just a harmless children's doll". Bit they must know really that's utter bullsh!t.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Same goes for white

> caricatured dolls/toys sold in countries populated

> by black societies, I would not regard those

> either as cocking a snoot to the days when

> Europeans were stolen from their countries and

> forced to slavery and death as a result of it.

>

Maybe if the were caricatures of European slaves you might, no?

[binary_star]

Glad to hear it Sue!

There you go Willard, baby Jesus can stop crying now, I've got an even better grasp on local politics as it relates to the BNP history now.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, that link is relating to very old news.

>

> At the last local election the BNP were thrashed

> in Barking and Dagenham.

>

> I was one of the people leafleting crucial areas

> as part of the Hope not Hate campaign, which was

> totally successful in its aims of persuading

> residents not to vote BNP.

>

> So I don't think the Dagenham reference is valid

> any more.

[Ridgley]

I am not sure if the doll is racist itself, it is what the doll symbolised to people of colour some find the doll offensive some don?t you can also argue the point that the Union Jack and the Swastika is also offensive to some ethnic groups as well. My mother group up playing with a very pale white Victorian porcelain doll maybe some might find that offensive too.

[Sue]

Well I'm not Jewish, nor am I a member of one of the other minority ethnic (and other) groups pursued by the Nazis, and I would be extremely horrified/offended if somebody was displaying swastikas in ED!

[Ridgley]

Glad to hear it Sue, my point is that it is not the Union Jack or the Swastikas are offensive it is what it was used to symbolised is.

[Sue]

Oh OK, sorry if I missed your point.

I know that the swastika originally represented something completely different before it was appropriated by the Nazis, and I have seen swastikas painted on walls in India which have nothing to do with Nazism, for example alongside pictures of Ganesh.

But I'm not sure that a Golliwog is quite the same thing.

Anyway, as you were, because I'm not quite sure what your point is so I'm clearly having one of my many brain-dead moments.

[Ridgley]

To some people it is, like I said in my last thread some peole find it offensive some don?t I am just looking at both side of the argument please below the Origins of the Golliwog it has mixed points of view as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg

[Ridgley]

As a child I wanted a black doll something that related to me, after given my mum earache she took me to the toy shop to buy one there were not many black dolls growing up in the 70s there were a few Golliywogs still around. But I did not like them from a point of view as a child when you buy a doll you want to comb there hair and dress them up I could not do this with Golii doll as it was a rag doll that is the way I saw it.

My white childhood friends new it was a black doll but they were intelligent to know that black people do not look like that so in the end mum asked a relative to bring one back from the Caribbean this doll I loved it had an afro hair funky 70s clothes had this doll for many years.

[katie1997]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I know that the swastika originally represented

> something completely different before it was

> appropriated by the Nazis, and I have seen

> swastikas painted on walls in India which have

> nothing to do with Nazism, for example alongside

> pictures of Ganesh.

Must say I didn't notice the difference when I first noticed them in India though the ones over there can face either way and aren't at an angle.

[Sue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

[Ridgley]

It funny how a something like a Swastika has been high jacked by others to turn it into something horrible.

[Sue]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a child I wanted a black doll something that

> related to me, after given my mum earache she took

> me to the toy shop to buy one there were not many

> black dolls growing up in the 70s there were a few

> Golliywogs still around. But I did not like them

> from a point of view as a child when you buy a

> doll you want to comb there hair and dress them up

> I could not do this with Golii doll as it was a

> rag doll that is the way I saw it.

xxxxx

My sister in the fifties had a black walkie-talkie doll, which my parents bought from a toyshop in Streatham. I still find it quite strange that she did as there were not many black people in London at that time, plus going by some comments they made my parents (white) were quite racist :-$

ETA: Actually I think it just walked, not talked. It might have cried when you tipped it up :)

[Guest]

Apparently Robertson's discontinued using their Golly trademark on jam only in 2002! Astonishing.