Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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'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).

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...