Have we really become Intolerant or taken PC too far ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:25 am

BBC News - Golly doll race charges against Jena Mason dropped

I don't know what to make of this.

On one hand, the Golliwog was a much loved emblem at one time In England, I had my own as a child from collecting coupons from Robinson's Jams.

On the other hand, I myself would not display one these days In my window.

Was this just a nasty, vindictive neighbour? I mean to actually arrest someone?

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:09 pm

oscar;1373351 wrote: BBC News - Golly doll race charges against Jena Mason dropped

I don't know what to make of this.

On one hand, the Golliwog was a much loved emblem at one time In England, I had my own as a child from collecting coupons from Robinson's Jams.

On the other hand, I myself would not display one these days In my window.

Was this just a nasty, vindictive neighbour? I mean to actually arrest someone?

I had one as a child too...I found it quite scary and it certainly wasn't one of my favourite toys. But I never made a connection between it and the lady from the West Indies who worked with my aunt and who gave me the loveliest cuddles whenever she saw me. Children's minds don't work in the same way as adult minds.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:45 am

It came out of the US ....it's actually jamacian and a classic design. I don't get the hype about it all . They tried here to put up a stink but it didn't work . They are back on the shelves. Nothing wrong with a black doll, and such a sweet thing it is . Yes I had one, a gollywog. People seem to take offence but it's a doll for gods sake ..but it must be different around the world.

If I referred to a certain kind of black as 'fuzzywuzzy angel' here, everyone knows what I'm talking about and there is great respect. Almost homage . storm in a tea cup .

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:04 am

It is one of them questions that there is no definitive answer.

Remember the Black and White minstrel show ?

Good old fashioned music even way back then I secretly enjoyed it, while a young man.

Othello has had blacked up white men playing the character for generations.

Robinson's jam has lost it's logo.

Perhaps we are getting more enlightened.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:39 am

Bruv;1373405 wrote: It is one of them questions that there is no definitive answer.

Remember the Black and White minstrel show ?

Good old fashioned music even way back then I secretly enjoyed it, while a young man.

Othello has had blacked up white men playing the character for generations.

Robinson's jam has lost it's logo.

Perhaps we are getting more enlightened. I remember my Father watching the black and white show.

My one problem with this case Is this.... If the neighbour was In Somalia say and saw a white doll In a house window, would she complain to the police? ... I very very much doubt It.

There Is a need for sensitivity In a multi-culteral society Yes, but surely In cases like this, the law has gone too far. To actually cause the person to be arrested Is outrageous when plod could have just gone round and had a word with the lady.

It Is cases like this that give SOME the wrong Idea and In fact could be seen as persecuting the . Indigenous. If the lady had called her neighbour, coon, Niger etc then under laws here, too right, she would have been arrested but to arrest over a doll in a window, surely this Is going way over the top?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:22 am

oscar;1373409 wrote: I remember my Father watching the black and white show.
Are you saying I am old enough to be your father ?

If the neighbour was In Somalia say and saw a white doll In a house window, would she complain to the police?

There is a history behind the caricature of a gollywog. It contains the word wog, almost as emotive as the n word, it has a grotesque caricature of negroid lips and a shock of afro hair.

I don't think there is an equivalent white doll

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:17 am

Bruv;1373415 wrote: Are you saying I am old enough to be your father ?

There is a history behind the caricature of a gollywog. It contains the word wog, almost as emotive as the n word, it has a grotesque caricature of negroid lips and a shock of afro hair.

I don't think there is an equivalent white doll The cabbage patch doll was pretty hideous.

I agree the word wog Included In the name can be offensive. However the Golliwogg is not a British Invention.

It was Invented by Florence Kate Upton who was born in 1873 in Flushing, New York.

In 1895, her book, entitled The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls, was published in London. Upton drew the illustrations, and her mother, Bertha Upton, wrote the accompanying verse. The book's main characters were two Dutch dolls, Peg and Sarah Jane, and the Golliwogg. The story begins with Peg and Sara Jane, on the loose in a toy shop, encountering "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome."

So the Golliwogg was not a caricature of a negroid but a gnome although a caricature of the caricature of the black minstrel.

Upton's original Illustrations showed the gnome often with paws.

During the early twentieth century, many prominent doll manufacturers began producing Golliwog dolls. The major Golliwog producers were Steiff, Schuco, and Levin, all three Germany companies.

So, given the history, are people being way too sensitive?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:49 am

oscar;1373417 wrote: The cabbage patch doll was pretty hideous.

I agree the word wog Included In the name can be offensive. However the Golliwogg is not a British Invention.

It was Invented by Florence Kate Upton who was born in 1873 in Flushing, New York.

In 1895, her book, entitled The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls, was published in London. Upton drew the illustrations, and her mother, Bertha Upton, wrote the accompanying verse. The book's main characters were two Dutch dolls, Peg and Sarah Jane, and the Golliwogg. The story begins with Peg and Sara Jane, on the loose in a toy shop, encountering "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome."

So the Golliwogg was not a caricature of a negroid but a gnome although a caricature of the caricature of the black minstrel.

Upton's original Illustrations showed the gnome often with paws.

During the early twentieth century, many prominent doll manufacturers began producing Golliwog dolls. The major Golliwog producers were Steiff, Schuco, and Levin, all three Germany companies.

So, given the history, are people being way too sensitive?

Great, more ammo for Spot.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:15 am

So, given the history, are people way too sensitive ?

Given some history, and the fact kids were stuffed up chimneys, and women couldn't vote ?

Times change, we learn from history.

The golliwog may have been termed a gnome, but the description ' a horrid sight, the blackest gnome' and the image beside it, can only lead anybody happening across the book to one conclusion.

I couldn't be offended by a cabbage patch doll, but I can see a black person being offended by a golliwog, without seeing the doll the name could offend, changing the name doesn't help either.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:16 am

YZGI;1373419 wrote: Great, more ammo for Spot.

And here it is in all it's naivety.......

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:42 am

Bruv;1373422 wrote: So, given the history, are people way too sensitive ?

Given some history, and the fact kids were stuffed up chimneys, and women couldn't vote ?

Times change, we learn from history.

The golliwog may have been termed a gnome, but the description ' a horrid sight, the blackest gnome' and the image beside it, can only lead anybody happening across the book to one conclusion.

I couldn't be offended by a cabbage patch doll, but I can see a black person being offended by a golliwog, without seeing the doll the name could offend, changing the name doesn't help either.

I'd never heard of a Golliwog until this thread.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:40 am

Bruv;1373422 wrote: So, given the history, are people way too sensitive ?

Given some history, and the fact kids were stuffed up chimneys, and women couldn't vote ?

Times change, we learn from history.

The golliwog may have been termed a gnome, but the description ' a horrid sight, the blackest gnome' and the image beside it, can only lead anybody happening across the book to one conclusion.

I couldn't be offended by a cabbage patch doll, but I can see a black person being offended by a golliwog, without seeing the doll the name could offend, changing the name doesn't help either.

Black people find the Golliwogg offensive because It is a black caracteur. Do white people find ugly white effigy's offensive?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:42 am

YZGI;1373426 wrote: I'd never heard of a Golliwog until this thread.

So forums are educational then ?

You could answer the question in all honesty because you have no former knowledge of the doll, do you think the name could be offensive or the images in the link ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:45 am

oscar;1373432 wrote: Black people find the Golliwogg offensive because It is a black caracteur. Do white people find ugly white effigy's offensive?

Personally no , but if I was Jewish, the representations of Jews in Nazi propaganda would.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:49 am

Bruv;1373434 wrote: So forums are educational then ?

You could answer the question in all honesty because you have no former knowledge of the doll, do you think the name could be offensive or the images in the link ?

People can find everything offensive if they want too.

We have had a discussion at my shop about what a black person could call a white person that would equal the "N" word. The closest we came to a word they could call us was a "Racist".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:19 pm

Bruv;1373435 wrote: Personally no , but if I was Jewish, the representations of Jews in Nazi propaganda would.
So, Is It the doll being black that Is offensive or the doll being ugly that is offensive? Is It how the doll Is portrayed and perceived?

When I had one as a child, I loved It and found nothing ugly or frightening In It. I also had a black doll that I loved as well. So why was a black doll and still is acceptable but an ugly black doll unacceptable?

I conclude that It Is the way the doll Is perceived that makes It unacceptable In today's society and not what It actually Is.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:13 pm

Bruv;1373415 wrote: Are you saying I am old enough to be your father ?

There is a history behind the caricature of a gollywog. It contains the word wog, almost as emotive as the n word, it has a grotesque caricature of negroid lips and a shock of afro hair.

I don't think there is an equivalent white doll

raggedy ann and andy

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:14 pm

YZGI;1373437 wrote: People can find everything offensive if they want too.

We have had a discussion at my shop about what a black person could call a white person that would equal the "N" word. The closest we came to a word they could call us was a "Racist".

'cracker'

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:17 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1373462 wrote: 'cracker'
Chalky or white trash

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:18 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1373462 wrote: 'cracker'

oscar;1373464 wrote: Chalky or white trash
Nah they don't bother me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:21 pm

YZGI;1373466 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1373464]Chalky or white trash
Nah they don't bother me.

I'm OK with being called trash.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:31 pm

It has to be all about context, surely? I used to work weekends at the acute hospital...my young colleague used to address me as "old woman." We both found it really funny. Yet, if a youngster shouted "old woman" at me in the street, I'd feel hurt.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:39 pm

theia;1373470 wrote: It has to be all about context, surely? I used to work weekends at the acute hospital...my young colleague used to address me as "old woman." We both found it really funny. Yet, if a youngster shouted "old woman" at me in the street, I'd feel hurt.

Yes, It's about context. Let's be honest here, the woman was arrested for hurting the feelings of another. When did we start calling for some-one's arrest because your feelings were hurt.

If It was an arrestable offence because Golliwogs were Illegal, then Yes... as far as I know they are not. It's political correctness that has deemed them bad taste. Bad taste Is down to Individual views and surely you should not have some-one arrested because you view something bad taste even if the majority agree with you.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:52 pm

oscar;1373468 wrote: [QUOTE=YZGI;1373466]

I'm OK with being called trash.

It's that it doesn't carry the same punch as the "N" word.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:59 pm

yzgi;1373473 wrote: [quote=oscar;1373468]

it's that it doesn't carry the same punch as the "n" word.

In my opinion, a word is just a word...to ban its usage is giving it power it doesn't have. I think it all depends on how a word is used.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:19 pm

theia;1373474 wrote: [quote=yzgi;1373473]

In my opinion, a word is just a word...to ban its usage is giving it power it doesn't have. I think it all depends on how a word is used.

Times change... remember this from the 60's when this was considered funny?

LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. - YouTube

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:39 pm

Speaking as a blackman might, anything a blackman can call a whiteman is from a position of weakness, like a child poking their tongue out at an adult. It doesn't work like that the other way around, the minority white race have had the upper hand for centuries.

The person who found the doll offensive in this instance is probably a serial PC activist trouble maker, the authorities that listened and ran with it are the main problem.

Now then.......if you think that was PC gone mad.....did you see this one LINKY

This guy offered an opinion and got into trouble

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:54 pm

Bruv;1373486 wrote:

The person who found the doll offensive in this instance is probably a serial PC activist trouble maker, the authorities that listened and ran with it are the main problem.

That's the problem. If the doll Is not Illegal, then plod should have diffused the situation. For example, I would be deeply offended If I happened to walk past my neighbours house and saw a dead Fox hanging In the window. I could get all silly and think he had done It just to offend me but sense would tell me that It's not Illlegal to shoot a Fox If you have a gun licence as he does. OK, I would put dog poo through his letterbox but I would not ask for him to be arrested because my feelings were hurt. Having a golliwog Is not Illegal so where you place It In the hosue can not also be Illegal. It was the neighbour deeming her neighbour had done It deliberately to offend her that caused the woman to be arrested and when do we start arresting Innocent people because of what someone thought they were thinking?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:07 pm

YZGI;1373426 wrote: I'd never heard of a Golliwog until this thread.

That's because it's a British expression despite the attempt in this thread to "credit" the US... to borrow from wikipedia:

There are differing versions of how the word "Golliwog" came into existence. One story is when the British soldiers were in Egypt in the 19th century, the Egyptian labourers working for the British Army were required to wear armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. indicating they were Working On Government Service and these labourers were called Ghuls (غول), an Arabic word for ghost, by the British soldiers. Children of the Egyptians played with rag dolls of black stuffed material and the British (soldiers) bought them as gifts and took them back to England. The dolls were called Ghuliwogs and this word later became Golliwog.

Another version, with some similarities but one difference is also of the Egyptian laborers wearing the armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. The British soldiers in hilarity began calling them "wogs;" they (the Egyptian labourers) in turn then called the soldiers "Ghuls" and from these two words came the word "ghulwog" which in turn became ghuliwog, golliwog.

Florence Kate Upton was born in 1873 in Flushing, New York, the daughter of English parents who had emigrated to the United States three years previously. Following the death of her father, she moved back to England with her mother and sisters when she was fourteen. There she spent several years drawing and developing her artistic skills. In order to afford tuition to art school, she illustrated a children's book entitled The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg...

Then there's this:

Wog or Pog is a slang word with a number of meanings, generally considered derogatory and, in some instances, extremely offensive when used in relation to ethnicity. The term is essentially used differently within the UK and Australian context: in the United Kingdom, historically it referred to "dark skinned" people and in its modern usage is considered overtly racist and is not used in polite conversation; while in Australian English the term was originally a pejorative for "Mediterranean" migrants, though in recent decades its offensiveness has been defused in certain contexts by common usage in pop-culture produced by the descendants of Mediterranean migrants.

More than you wanted to know, but it explains why this alleged American creation is unknown to most of us in the US.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:24 pm

SnoozeAgain;1373497 wrote: That's because it's a British expression despite the attempt in this thread to "credit" the US... to borrow from wikipedia:

Then there's this:

More than you wanted to know, but it explains why this alleged American creation is unknown to most of us in the US.

Alleged? She was born In America... That makes her American.

There are differing versions of how the word "Golliwog" came into existence. One story is when the British soldiers were in Egypt in the 19th century, the Egyptian labourers working for the British Army were required to wear armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. Indicating they were Working On Government Service and these labourers were called Ghuls an Arabic word for ghost, by the British soldiers. Children of the Egyptians played with rag dolls of black stuffed material and the British soldiers bought them as gifts and took them back to England. The dolls were called Ghuliwogs and this word later became Golliwog.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:20 pm

oscar;1373482 wrote: [QUOTE=theia;1373474]

Times change... remember this from the 60's when this was considered funny?

LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. - YouTube

I thought that "we" found it funny because we laughing at Alf Garnett and his bigoted views?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:51 pm

Love thy neighbour??? considered funny? ....It still is!!!

"OI!! Milky!!" ..."Yes? what do you want nig nog"......

Post by **spot** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:03 pm

I think people are ignoring the origin of the image. It's based rather vividly and obviously on the blackface minstrel, a white singer dressed and blacked up in exactly the way the Golly appears, and it had been a popular form of entertainment in the US for at least the thirty years from the end of the Civil War to the writing of Upton's book.

Blackface singing came to England on the back of the Golly image which is definitively American and, from the start, a caricature of the American Negro. I use the terminology of the time.

The Blackface image started out as comic and eventually became so insulting that it died. The same should be true of the Golly too, regardless of what's in the mind of the user.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:38 pm

EFFING BULLSHIT!!!!!! read your appropriate history on dolls and what the face and modern design is based on .

I had a gollywog and recently have begun collecting them again and indeed I buy off a woman who makes them . They are jamaican in origin and not based on the African American. Even jamaincan girls had them . They are not even offensive to our blacks.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:38 am

fuzzywuzzy;1373562 wrote: EFFING BULLSHIT!!!!!! read your appropriate history on dolls and what the face and modern design is based on . Fuzz, which of my assertions do you take exception to? Every word of my post is accurate, historical, capable of easy demonstration, testable - the fact that you dislike the conclusion is your own problem, not mine. Reality isn't always the way you'd like it to be. Live with it.

Do you see the whitened mouth outline? The morning suit with tails and the bow tie? The frizzed hair? Go and check Blackface singers, anywhere, any time. Check Al Jolson for example. Gollywog.

Check the dates of white singers in Blackface for popularity. 1865-1895 is bang on their peak, after which there's suddenly book references to Gollywog dolls as existing toys. Draw the connecting lines. It's all about mocking Rastus and Eliza in the coalshed. The fact that there are children in the world with no knowledge of the history doesn't make their innocent pleasure playing with Gollywogs any less offensive to the descendants of the parodied American Plantation slave.

The fact that the Gollywog is seemingly so unknown in the US itself nowadays - along with Blackface singing, I expect - suggests to my mind that 1960s America was more attuned to the unacceptable aspect of the doll than the rest of the world, having seen the background and heard the prejudice up close and personal.

If you think I'm wrong, instead of swearing and telling me to read an unspecified book, point out my mistakes and then we can both make progress. I hate "yes it is" "no it isn't", life's too short.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:09 am

spot;1373573 wrote: Fuzz, which of my assertions do you take exception to? Every word of my post is accurate, historical, capable of easy demonstration, testable - the fact that you dislike the conclusion is your own problem, not mine. Reality isn't always the way you'd like it to be. Live with it.

Do you see the whitened mouth outline? The morning suit with tails and the bow tie? The frizzed hair? Go and check Blackface singers, anywhere, any time. Check Al Jolson for example. Gollywog.

Check the dates of white singers in Blackface for popularity. 1865-1895 is bang on their peak, after which there's suddenly book references to Gollywog dolls as existing toys. Draw the connecting lines. It's all about mocking Rastus and Eliza in the coalshed. The fact that there are children in the world with no knowledge of the history doesn't make their innocent pleasure playing with Gollywogs any less offensive to the descendants of the parodied American Plantation slave.The fact that the Gollywog is seemingly so unknown in the US itself nowadays - along with Blackface singing, I expect - suggests to my mind that 1960s America was more attuned to the unacceptable aspect of the doll than the rest of the world, having seen the background and heard the prejudice up close and personal.

If you think I'm wrong, instead of swearing and telling me to read an unspecified book, point out my mistakes and then we can both make progress. I hate "yes it is" "no it isn't", life's too short.

Could you give me some more information on this please, spot?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:49 am

I'm sure spot's correct but the term "gollywogg" or wog is limited to the UK and her children. The word "blackface" can rile up most people over here, however.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:58 am

Theia, not throwing a spanner in the works, just need clarification of what you are asking.

Is it that children are unaware of history ? Or that blacks might be offended ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:58 am

theia;1373574 wrote: [quote=spot]The fact that there are children in the world with no knowledge of the history doesn't make their innocent pleasure playing with Gollywogs any less offensive to the descendants of the parodied American Plantation slaveCould you give me some more information on this please, spot?
It seemed likely. Finding expressions of offence written by the descendants of the parodied American Plantation slave, I can find, for example, a social science text from the 1920s, "Lasker, Bruno. Race Attitudes in Children. New York: Henry Holt, 1929", a review of which by Patricia Miletich includesThemes of racial representations in the perpetuation (and possibly modification) of racial attitudes during the 1920s and the development of racial pride and consciousness among both whites and blacks are key concerns during the New Negro Renaissance. Dolls that reduce African-Americans to caricatures, such as the golliwogs, or reinforce blacks as subservient domestics (the prevalence of the Aunt Jemima dolls) breed a negative self-image in black children and feelings of superiority in white children. Stereotypical and racist dolls send a message to children of both races that black people have only one role to play in society—to serve whites as servants in a status of second-class citizens. The development of black entrepreneurs who manufacture black dolls or import European dolls (“of a superior type”) reflect the concerns of African-American leaders from Du Bois to Garvey in the 1920s.

I'm not sure a succession of such supporting comments would help the thread but I can add more if asked.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:21 am

Bruv;1373576 wrote: Theia, not throwing a spanner in the works, just need clarification of what you are asking.

Is it that children are unaware of history ? Or that blacks might be offended ?

It was the "offensive" part, Bruv...sorry if it wasn't clear.

I'm not so interested in the children and history part...probably due to when my son and I lived in the Scottish Highlands some years ago...he came home from school after a history lesson and told me that the history he had learned in English schools was all wrong

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:40 am

Thank you, spot.

Do you know if there are any research studies on the effects of "golliwog play" on a child's self image?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:44 am

I believe that black kids would be happy to play with golliwogs.

Take the same child a few years latter with some awareness of the relevance and undertones of the cute doll and no doubt they will be offended.

A white and black child would enjoy a game of mothers and fathers, using a range of white and golliwog type dolls..........innocence is not all bad.....education is not all good......or is it ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:17 am

theia;1373581 wrote: Thank you, spot.

Do you know if there are any research studies on the effects of "golliwog play" on a child's self image?

I doubt whether it has such an effect. The effect begins, I'd suggest, around puberty when children start to evaluate society at a wider level, but I'd have to spend time in Marcus Garvey's speeches to dig out his view. I don't know anyone else's statements I'd trust from back then.

eta: having just seen it: like what Bruv said.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:55 am

theia;1373581 wrote:

Do you know if there are any research studies on the effects of "golliwog play" on a child's self image?

spot;1373584 wrote: I doubt whether it has such an effect. The effect begins, I'd suggest, around puberty when children start to evaluate society at a wider level, but I'd have to spend time in Marcus Garvey's speeches to dig out his view. I don't know anyone else's statements I'd trust from back then.

There have been at least two experiments that show children black and white have a preference for white dolls and whiteness equaling good, and black dolls and blackness equaling bad.

I Googled for the one I saw pretty recently, but found the one I link to HERE

I am sure I watched a TV program about a white teacher's experiment about children and their racial bias in choosing/labeling colours as good or bad, believe it was a long running project from the 50's or 60's.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:26 am

Bruv;1373585 wrote: There have been at least two experiments that show children black and white have a preference for white dolls and whiteness equaling good, and black dolls and blackness equaling bad.

I Googled for the one I saw pretty recently, but found the one I link to HERE

I am sure I watched a TV program about a white teacher's experiment about children and their racial bias in choosing/labeling colours as good or bad, believe it was a long running project from the 50's or 60's.

Thank you for the link, Bruv. I've skim read some of the related articles and they have really made me think...it seems to me that the issue isn't with the dolls as such, but with the choices that the children make and their reasons for their choice. Now that is worrying, this surt-uv inbuilt "white is good and black is bad." And, more worrying, the 2006 study didn't show much improvement.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:37 am

I don't think it is 'inbuilt'

And to me THAT is the worrying bit, the things we pass onto our children.........and that blacks pass onto their children, without knowing it.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:48 am

Bruv;1373588 wrote: I don't think it is 'inbuilt'

And to me THAT is the worrying bit, the things we pass onto our children.........and that blacks pass onto their children, without knowing it.

Neither do I...I was struggling to think of a word and "inbuilt" wasn't it. What I was trying to say was that I find it worrying that there is this...still struggling...implicit and often unchallenged idea that white is good and black is bad.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:13 am

I was just looking through some info on the band CCR and read that at one time their name was changed to the "Golliwogs" to supposedly cash in on the "wave of popular British bands with similar names".

Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:10 am

spot;1373573 wrote: Fuzz, which of my assertions do you take exception to? Every word of my post is accurate, historical, capable of easy demonstration, testable - the fact that you dislike the conclusion is your own problem, not mine. Reality isn't always the way you'd like it to be. Live with it.

Do you see the whitened mouth outline? The morning suit with tails and the bow tie? The frizzed hair? Go and check Blackface singers, anywhere, any time. Check Al Jolson for example. Gollywog.

Check the dates of white singers in Blackface for popularity. 1865-1895 is bang on their peak, after which there's suddenly book references to Gollywog dolls as existing toys. Draw the connecting lines. It's all about mocking Rastus and Eliza in the coalshed. The fact that there are children in the world with no knowledge of the history doesn't make their innocent pleasure playing with Gollywogs any less offensive to the descendants of the parodied American Plantation slave.

The fact that the Gollywog is seemingly so unknown in the US itself nowadays - along with Blackface singing, I expect - suggests to my mind that 1960s America was more attuned to the unacceptable aspect of the doll than the rest of the world, having seen the background and heard the prejudice up close and personal.

If you think I'm wrong, instead of swearing and telling me to read an unspecified book, point out my mistakes and then we can both make progress. I hate "yes it is" "no it isn't", life's too short.

You really do spout some old crap when the mood takes you.

You hate yes It is or no It Isn't yet your highlighted paragraph Is no more than your own opinion..

You can throw as much history taken from reading other opinions on the net as you like but the Issue here Is perception.

The doll Is not Illegal. There has been attempts In the past to ban the golliwog and have failed because you can not make something Illegal based purely on perception. What led to the ladies arrest in the opening article was based purely on perception by a neighbour who took umbrage.

It doesn't matter about the history of the Golliwogg and what It portrayed. The arguement as to weather It is offensive or not Is borne by the looney lefties TELLING us It is offensive. If some-one tells you something Is offensive often enough you naturally begin to question It. The PC brigade who deem It offensive Is nothing more than a gaggle of opinions. It can not be proved legally weather It Is or Is not. If It could It would have been made Illegal. You can throw as much history as you like at It In attempt to persuede but It stands at Individual perception. The only problem Is when the bigoted tell the masses how to think and that is what is wrong here. The bigoted believe that anyone who does not find the golliwogg offensive, must be a closest racist harbouring dark thoughts and hidden agenda's.

It Is also hypocritical. I am sure In saying that I would Imagine some black people find the Image of Punch and Judy cute and amusing. Any member of the black community who laughs at Punch could also be deemed racist for laughing at an Image of a grotesque white, humpbacked, wife beater with a large nose.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:11 am

YZGI;1373592 wrote: I was just looking through some info on the band CCR and read that at one time their name was changed to the "Golliwogs" to supposedly cash in on the "wave of popular British bands with similar names".

Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Correct... Many bands have labelled tracks Including the Golliwogg.