The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-20-2013, 12:53 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Keeping my password unchanged
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
How taboo are golliwogs these days? Anybody here have/had them?

See subjects.

Interesting history, full of ironies, in Wiki.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-20-2013, 12:57 PM
gnoitall gnoitall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
See subjects.

Interesting history, full of ironies, in Wiki.
I have never seen one before today. Never heard the word, either.

I can see why they're considered taboo. There isn't much to commend in that. Public flaunting of the old blackface stereotype has been out of favor for longer than I've been alive.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-20-2013, 02:25 PM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,535
It was used extensively as a term of racial abuse in the UK right through to the 1980's.

For many of those years, there was a brand of Jam and Marmalades called 'Robertsons' that had a very long running promotion, whereby you collected golliwog cut outs from the labels, and once you had collected enough you sent them off and you would receive a little golliwog badge or golliwog ornament, these were extremely popular with children.

For anyone of any colour, it was very common to be abused with the term' Get back on your jam jar nig-nog'

I was the recipient of this abuse for years, sadly many white folks still do not even begin to understand why this is a hateful figure, many folk still think that the removal of the golliwog promotion was just the P.C brigade gone mad.

The abuse was real enough, I had numerous punch-ups merely from this one promotion alone and as a result of the frequent fights I got pretty good at it too, and I'm quite prepared to go on the offensive again.

I just cannot imagine how white people seem to think they have the right to use terms that are obviously offensive, use them in an offensive manner, and act all surprised to find a set of fast moving knuckles in their faces.

Last edited by casdave; 06-20-2013 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-20-2013, 02:31 PM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,622
I've got a small collection of Robertson's Gollies (like these) - they were promotional collectibles up until about the 1980s from Robertsons Marmalade - I think you had to collect so many labels and post them in with a small sum of money for return postage of the figurine.

They're still around in antique and collector markets - quite desirable, in part because of their political incorrectness.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2013, 02:40 PM
sidecar_jon sidecar_jon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
I remember collecting the lose gollys (they used to be behind the label and latter became part of the label) and sending off and i got a sax playing golly..and i know exactly the bit of rough path i lost it on 40 years ago and look for it every time i pass. Its really sad anyone suffered insults from it and if i ts any consolation it never entered my head the figure had anything to do with black people...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Keeve Keeve is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnoitall View Post
I have never seen one before today. Never heard the word, either.

I can see why they're considered taboo. There isn't much to commend in that. Public flaunting of the old blackface stereotype has been out of favor for longer than I've been alive.
Ditto.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-20-2013, 03:37 PM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,395
Anyone else here skim the title and wonder why the hell it would taboo to collect immature frogs?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-20-2013, 03:46 PM
AncientHumanoid AncientHumanoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Funny thing in that wiki page: It had a "citation needed" tag for the feature "frizzy hair."

Look at the picture! The "clown lips" is probably open for debate, but the hair IS frizzy. At least it didn't say nappy. I think someone was playing around.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-20-2013, 03:46 PM
lisiate lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Well up until a couple of years ago you could still buy them in Auckland Airport. Then again we have mayors who use the term 'niggers in the woodpile' as well..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-20-2013, 03:53 PM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
I've got a small collection of Robertson's Gollies (like these) - they were promotional collectibles up until about the 1980s from Robertsons Marmalade - I think you had to collect so many labels and post them in with a small sum of money for return postage of the figurine.

They're still around in antique and collector markets - quite desirable, in part because of their political incorrectness.
Heh I remember I was looking at antique stores in the Niagra area a decade or so ago and I came across this place that was like an indoor antiques and collectibles market, where there were different rooms set up by different people who obviously rented space - each with a different type of collectible.

One guy had a room that was nothing but Black characatures in the form of ornaments and objects. Some were totally innocuous and some were extremely offensive - cartoony racist caracatures of Black people. They were as I recall all pretty expensive.

The man whose room this was was himself Black. I asked him outright if he had any issues selling this stuff. He said that he was fascinated by these things, and that most of his big-spending customers were other Black people who were also fascinated by these things. Go figure.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-20-2013, 04:00 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by casdave View Post
It was used extensively as a term of racial abuse in the UK right through to the 1980's.
I've heard the term "wog" used as an ethnic term by clueless older characters in UK productions, e.g. the Major in Fawlty Towers, but I didn't realize the term must be short for golliwog.

I've only heard "golliwog" in one other place--namely, the title "Golliwog's Cakewalk", the ragtime-infused last movement of Children's Corner by Claude Debussy. I've been interested in ragtime since early high school, and never knew that by using the term Golliwog, as offensive as it is to us now, Debussy was commendably giving props to the true originators of ragtime music, at a time when most people probably thought it had been invented by white followers like Charles Krell and Ben Harney, and later, Irving Berlin and George Gershwin.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-20-2013, 04:31 PM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
The only thing I ever knew about the term is that "the Golliwoggs" was an early name for Creedence Clearwater Revival.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-20-2013, 05:35 PM
njtt njtt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
When I was a young child, in 1950s England, golliwogs were a standard cuddly toy for young children, much as teddy bears still are. I had one, as did most children. Whatever the toy's origins may have been, by that time I am sure most of the children, and even most of the parents did not realize that it had racialist (as we used to say back then) or possibly offensive connotations. My parents were always very staunchly anti-racist, and I am sure they would never have let me have a golliwog (or to collect the labels from Robertson's jam in order to get golliwog badges, which I also did) if tey haverhoug that there was anything racist about it. Indeed, it never even occurred to me, as a child, that a golliwog was meant to represent a black person, and when I learned about this (when I was much older and the idea that golliwogs were racist and offensive was starting to get about) I was, at first, quite surprised. After all, a golliwog does not, in fact, look very much like a real black person.

Part of the reason for this, I think, is that until the later 1950s, there were almost no actual black people living in Britain. Thus, in the period (presumably before the 1950s) when golliwogs established them selves as a "standard" children's toy in Britain, one the one hand there was nobody black around to take offense at them, and, on the other hand, most people who owned them or gave them to their children had never seen an actual black person, and probably often did not make the connection between real people and this very stylized toy. As the British black population grew, through the 1960s and '70s, the offensiveness of golliwogs came to be realized, even by people who never actually meant anything offensive by having them, and they fairly rapidly began to disappear from the toy shops.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-20-2013, 05:54 PM
EmilyG EmilyG is offline
An 8th-note short of a 4/4 bar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,284
I have seen them for sale at a local Scottish festival a few years ago.

(I''m not saying the Scots are racist or anything. I'm just saying what I saw.)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-20-2013, 06:00 PM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Way back in the 60s (I think) there was a widely believed story where a schoolgirls at a grammar school wore yellow golliwog badges to signify their lost virginity.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-20-2013, 06:02 PM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Perhaps it is also significant that racist terms like Kike, Gyppo and Wog, as well as the 'N' word were widely used in the first half of the 20th century. Of course only Jews, gypsies and black people were offended so that was OK.

Last edited by bob++; 06-20-2013 at 06:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-20-2013, 06:13 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Keeping my password unchanged
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Perhaps it is also significant that racist terms like Kike, Gyppo and Wog, as well as the 'N' word were widely used in the first half of the 20th century. Of course only Jews, gypsies and black people were offended so that was OK.
Italics added.
I'm blanking on "the 'N' word."

Is it Nigger? Or, if you can't bear it:
Is it "Nigger?"

Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-20-2013, 06:16 PM
njtt njtt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Way back in the 60s (I think) there was a widely believed story where a schoolgirls at a grammar school wore yellow golliwog badges to signify their lost virginity.
Yellow golliwogs?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-20-2013, 06:36 PM
Asympotically fat Asympotically fat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Robertson's golliwog promotion didn't actually finish until 2002
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:14 PM
astro astro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus View Post
I've heard the term "wog" used as an ethnic term by clueless older characters in UK productions, e.g. the Major in Fawlty Towers, but I didn't realize the term must be short for golliwog.

I've only heard "golliwog" in one other place--namely, the title "Golliwog's Cakewalk", the ragtime-infused last movement of Children's Corner by Claude Debussy. I've been interested in ragtime since early high school, and never knew that by using the term Golliwog, as offensive as it is to us now, Debussy was commendably giving props to the true originators of ragtime music, at a time when most people probably thought it had been invented by white followers like Charles Krell and Ben Harney, and later, Irving Berlin and George Gershwin.
I thought "Wog" was an acronym for Wily Oriental Gentleman.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:24 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
. . . Is it "N[*****]?" . . .
Yes.

Seriously, yes, there are a few of us who are reluctant to use the word, holding it to be pretty much the ne plus ultra of offensive language. There are a few other words I'd very much rather not use.

I was once spelling a word over the phone in a technical context. A like in Apple, B like in Banana...N like in Fuhrman...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:30 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
I thought "Wog" was an acronym for Wily Oriental Gentleman.
As with almost any etymology for a pre-20th century word based on an acronym, that one is untrue.

Wog has been a generalised word for diseases and vermin for centuries. It's still widely used in Australia to mean a non-specific illness. It seems to have shifted to being a racial slur through the obvious route. It has nothing to do with any acronym and nothing to do with golliwogs. The word golliwog itself seems to have originated as a play on "polliwog", which itself is a usage of the "vermin" meaning of wog.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:36 PM
jabiru jabiru is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,662
I never owned a Golliwog as a child (nor did I own a teddy bear - what a deprived childhood I had). I was in a craft store (regional NSW) recently which had hundreds of teddies, golliwogs and all manner of soft toys. I was drawn to a particular golliwog but it was already sold to someone else. They do make to order, so I have one coming to me. Turns out his name is George, which is my father's name.

No, I don't feel I'm being racist or xenophobic in buying one. He's gorgeous.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:48 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Keeping my password unchanged
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:

Trinopus
Member

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
. . . Is it "N[*****]?" . . .
Yes.

Seriously, yes, there are a few of us who are reluctant to use the word, holding it to be pretty much the ne plus ultra of offensive language. There are a few other words I'd very much rather not use.

I was once spelling a word over the phone in a technical context. A like in Apple, B like in Banana...N like in Fuhrman...
But it's OKAY to write "Kike?" Or Kike? Hey, victim-status opprobiousity fight: I challenge all you bastards.

Also, the word "use" is weird. By using other symbols than the alphabet for sounds that everyone knows (cf. "Jehovah")--what? Thunderbolt from on high for writing or pronouncing the word in an appropriate context (cf., again, "Jehovah"). Feeling of being virtuous by alerting your readers that you think the word is a really powerful one (I don't think we need such a commentary)? Religous Jews do it with "G-d"; in Hebrew liturgy, with "Jehovah," they don't even go there sonically, in prayer skipping away entirely and in non-liturgy double-skipping away. I mean, at least, when you wrote it, did you not internally sound out the carefully counted starred/obscured letters/phonemes? Are we not to? Because we can't. Especially after you called it "the 'N' word"--eg, its that word we're supposed to know if we are culturally literate.

Plus you're of such a feeling and opinion of SD that you changed the quote, which is frowned upon. (I know you used brackets, but it might not have been clear to others reading the cite).

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 06-20-2013 at 07:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:55 PM
April R April R is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
They come in white versions too, BTW
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-20-2013, 07:55 PM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
I think the idea is still heavily racially charged, here in the US. I think most people aren't really familiar with it, but would be quick to see its unsuitability of they did see one. This page from the Jim Crow Museum puts it down pretty squarely: http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/golliwog/

It seems highly probable to me that "gollywog" spun off somehow from "pollywog' -- heck , no other word even sounds close to it in english. And even if some other word sits at the root, "pollywog" almost certainly helped it attain its form. The word first appeared, AFAIK, in a children's book, and from there it became a British cultural icon.

What amazes me is that Alan Moore made the (unnamed)Gollywog a character in his third League of Extraordinary Gentlemen outing, The Black Dossier, almost as if he was waving it in the face of modern sensibility. But Moore's LXG series pretty often showed apparently racist attitudes and dialogue, whether because of the period of his influences, or for some other reason.

scroll to the note on Page 166 in this link:
http://www.enjolrasworld.com/Jess%20...r/dossier.html


http://andweshallmarch.typepad.com/a...ier/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-20-2013, 08:11 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Keeping my password unchanged
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by April R View Post
This article is worth reading.

Definitely worth watching--and I know comments on it would be of interest--is the scene from Extras where her dream man comes over for a first date. (Note that whoever posted the clip put "golly toy" in the title. Common usage? Even with lower-case, or was that a typo?)

She then takes a test to check if she's a racist.

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 06-20-2013 at 08:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-20-2013, 09:11 PM
dropzone dropzone is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 23,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Interesting history, full of ironies, in Wiki.
Jeezily-FUCK! But not surprising, since the BBC showed that minstrel show until, when was it? Last week? The '70s? Same difference. Either way it was too damned late.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-20-2013, 09:17 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
But it's OKAY to write "K[***]?"
You didn't read what I said very carefully. I said there are several other words I would also be reluctant to use. You happened to have zeroed in on one of them.

Your reasoning is fallcious.

"I don't approve of murder."
"But it's OKAY to commit rape?"

"I don't like racists."
"But it's OKAY to be a homophobe?"

"I wouldn't drink urine."
"But it's OKAY to eat feces?"

To all four questions (yours and my three examples) the answer is: No.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-20-2013, 10:19 PM
stui magpie stui magpie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
In regard to the history,

Quote:
The earliest Golliwog (or Golliwogg as he was originally called) is the hero in books of verse written by Bertha Upton in the 1890s, and illustrated by her daughter Florence.
http://www.golliwogg.co.uk/

It also appears that the term "Wog" is also originally a British one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog

I've seen the term used in fictional pieces set in the 1800's and used in context by upper class English gentlemen to refer to anyone who wasn't English, but usually aimed at those with darker skin.

In regard to the OP about how taboo they are, here's an interesting reference to Enid Blyton's granddaughter writing new stories about Noddy and Big Ears but removing the Golliwogs from the cast.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oid-upset.html

I know of a woman who collects them still. She's aware of the racial over tones but is not personally racist, to her they're a stuffed toy that she particularly likes.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-20-2013, 10:34 PM
Sunspace Sunspace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 26,577
I'm glad to say that I have never heard of these before, with the possible exception of an old Rupert book I had as a kid. At any rate they are exceedingly-uncommon her in Ontario.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-20-2013, 10:46 PM
cckerberos cckerberos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
The man whose room this was was himself Black. I asked him outright if he had any issues selling this stuff. He said that he was fascinated by these things, and that most of his big-spending customers were other Black people who were also fascinated by these things. Go figure.
You might find this article interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-21-2013, 12:05 AM
Isilder Isilder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Why do we look at history to decide this ?
IF the history shows that Africans were wronged,then it does, but what does that have to do with deciding what is right ?

Why shouldn't a black person
a. like black dolls
b. be curious even knowledgeable about all thing that affect the status of black people in the past, even including childrens dolls,
c. create a doll or even dress up like a tearaway who is a bit of a clown.


The gollywog is misunderstood. It is in fact at tool for breaking down barriers.
Actually its neither here nor there.
Just as the boy may pretend to hang his gollywog, the girl may pretend to marry hers.



I can't see why its offensive to have a gollywog character.


If I dress up like the POTUSA, I am dressing up to pretend to be an idiot ?

The ban on gollywogs is only a ban imposed by overly selfrighteous doogooder types who are just don't know real life.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-21-2013, 01:16 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
It's the history associated with the toy and the fact that it's a caricature of black features that's the issue, Isilder.

Imagine we had a "Jew-boy" toy, with a comedy hooked nose, and wicked scowl, that had been used for decades to make fun of Jewish people.
You would not appreciate that such a thing would be offensive?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:00 AM
njtt njtt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunspace View Post
I'm glad to say that I have never heard of these before, with the possible exception of an old Rupert book I had as a kid. At any rate they are exceedingly-uncommon her in Ontario.
I don't think there were any golliwogs in the Rupert stories. Rupert and his friends were not talking toys, they were anthropomorphized versions of real animals.

I am pretty confident that golliwogs are very uncommon in Britain now, but 50 or 60 years ago they were very common (and, not coincidentally, back then actual black people in Britain were very uncommon).

Last edited by njtt; 06-21-2013 at 02:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:30 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
It's the history associated with the toy and the fact that it's a caricature of black features that's the issue, Isilder.

Imagine we had a "Jew-boy" toy, with a comedy hooked nose, and wicked scowl, that had been used for decades to make fun of Jewish people.
You would not appreciate that such a thing would be offensive?
I don't think it's really true that the golliwog character was used to make fun of black people - certainly the design of the character is based on a caricature, but the character itself exists for that purpose - indeed, the early origins of the character appear to have been a lesson about racial tolerance; from the Wikipedia page on the topic:
Quote:
The 1895 book included a character named the Golliwogg, who was first described as "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome", but who quickly turned out to be a friendly character, and is later attributed with a "kind face."
Golliwog is not to black as Fagin is to Jewish.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:46 AM
Eliahna Eliahna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 6,614
I often see them for sale in shops around here. Your average Aussie is aware they are controversial, but doesn't understand why. They perceive them as a made-up humanoid character and don't associate them with people of African heritage (that's certainly the case with my mother and grandmother who have both asked me in genuine puzzlement why they are "banned"). I've said before that I think it's because when they think of African Americans, they think of Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Halle Berry, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Jordan... they don't think of blackface.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:00 AM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Golliwogs was the original name of Creedence Clearwater Revival
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golliwogs

Last edited by aceplace57; 06-21-2013 at 03:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:00 AM
sandra_nz sandra_nz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
I remember a golliwog toy when I was a kid, I think it was knitted. I also had some old records with stories, one of which was Little Black Sambo. This was in the 70s, I was the youngest of three so they were probably purchased in the 60s.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:14 AM
palacheck palacheck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Boy, the aboriginal population of Australia really doesn't have much push at all it seems. Have they ever?

They've had their dicks knocked in the dirt so many times that no one really bothers, I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:44 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
I don't think it's really true that the golliwog character was used to make fun of black people - certainly the design of the character is based on a caricature, but the character itself exists for that purpose - indeed, the early origins of the character appear to have been a lesson about racial tolerance; from the Wikipedia page on the topic:


Golliwog is not to black as Fagin is to Jewish.
That isn't what I meant.

The golliwog has been used to make fun of black people in many instances. Whether it was originally created for that purpose is largely irrelevant. And, as you agree, it has caricatures of black features.

In my analogy, just add that the original creator meant the Jew boy to be a story of how "a horrid sight, the meanest-looking gnome" turns out to be a good and generous boy.
Nevertheless people use the doll, which contains several caricatures of Jews, to make fun of them. So now it's acceptable, right? No-one should find it offensive?

Last edited by Mijin; 06-21-2013 at 03:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:11 AM
stui magpie stui magpie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by palacheck View Post
Boy, the aboriginal population of Australia really doesn't have much push at all it seems. Have they ever?

They've had their dicks knocked in the dirt so many times that no one really bothers, I guess.

Really unfair call. They were just never caricatured in media to anywhere near the extent that the African slave was. We never had a whole genre devoted to taking the piss out of them on stage and in movies. None of these things that relate to African American slaves really relate well to the Australian Aboriginal, they have more in common with the Native American and Inuit, both indigenous people who were dispossessed of land .

People do bother, the Aboriginals are still in the main a seriously disadvantaged people and there is a lot of programs to help that, but it's only 50 years since they were recognised in the census and had the right to vote in federal elections formalised. Progress is coming, not as quickly as it could or should but it's coming.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:12 AM
njtt njtt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
That isn't what I meant.

The golliwog has been used to make fun of black people in many instances.
Probably it has occasionally been used to "make fun of" or otherwise denigrate black people, but, in my experience, it usually was not used or understood that way. For most kids who had golliwogs back in the day, they did not represent anything. They were just a traditional sort of cuddly toy. As I said above, it did not even cross my mind, back in the '50s, that my golliwog was even meant to represent a black person, much less mock black people, and I am sure that if it had crossed my parents' minds that golliwogs were meant to mock or denigrate black people, they would not have allowed me to have one.

Of course, I fully understand, now, why a black person would find a golliwog offensive, and being, like everyone else, much more sensitized to the potential offensiveness of racial symbols than anyone was back then, I would certainly never give one to a child now (or own one and put it on display). However, the fact is that golliwogs really do not have much a history of being associated with racial hatred. They certainly have the potential to be used that way, and for people of today it may be hard to imagine that they would not be so used, but, in fact, for the most part they very rarely were.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:26 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
They certainly have the potential to be used that way, and for people of today it may be hard to imagine that they would not be so used, but, in fact, for the most part they very rarely were.
I disagree. I have heard experiences like casdave's reported by many people, too many for me to think it was rare.
Of course, not every child saw that particular meaning. I wouldn't think or claim that they would. I watched the film Dumbo as a child and didn't notice that the crows were meant to be black.

Nonetheless, the Jewboy analogy shows why it's offensive, and why it's not simply a matter of "overly selfrighteous doogooder types" (quoting ISilder).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-21-2013, 04:54 AM
Half Man Half Wit Half Man Half Wit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
A Golliwog also appears in Allan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; that was the first instance of one I'd ever seen, and at least to me, didn't carry any connotations to blackface etc. But then I lack the historical context.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:11 AM
Battle Pope Battle Pope is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
You could get Golliwog chocolate biscuits up until the early 1990's here. I remember having them as a kid. IIRC there was a few people complain when they were renamed and then later withdrawn from sale.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-21-2013, 05:12 AM
An Gadaí An Gadaí is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
I saw gollywogs for sale in a toy shop a few years back. There was an icepop called a Golly Bar when I was a kid. It had been called a Gollywog prior to that. It had a gollywog on the packaging. It was a slice of vanilla ice cream on a stick.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-21-2013, 07:52 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
That isn't what I meant.

The golliwog has been used to make fun of black people in many instances. Whether it was originally created for that purpose is largely irrelevant. And, as you agree, it has caricatures of black features.

In my analogy, just add that the original creator meant the Jew boy to be a story of how "a horrid sight, the meanest-looking gnome" turns out to be a good and generous boy.
Nevertheless people use the doll, which contains several caricatures of Jews, to make fun of them. So now it's acceptable, right? No-one should find it offensive?
Anything can be abused - the abuse is the problem, not the object.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-21-2013, 08:01 AM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,535
I think some of you need to see a few 'good old English' sitcoms and cringe a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMD_UHOJkVw

'Till Death us do part' actually did tackle race issues in a genuinely humorous way, but what about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NnvUjozzQM

For me it is not Chubby Browns word I find most offensive, its the audience reaction.

You've got to remember that racism as used in comedy was a very cheap way of getting a laugh at the expense of others.

Any black , Asian or - worst of all mixed race child growing up during the 1960-1980's was pretty much subjected to a torrent of abuse, from downright overt through to mild social comment and for no other reason than it was just easy to do and had become an acceptable social practice. You got it from almost every direction, especially from the lowbrow media and newspapers.

Its that normality that is so offensive, the child given the gollywog - of course it was used later as a racist term, probably by the same child in later life - that's just how deep it went, it wasn't even seen as racist, unless of course you were black.

I would often be given the back handed compliment of being 'You're alright you're not like all those other Pakkis'

Put simply, I find it offensive, and that should pretty much be enough for you - its that simple. If you have to justify it, then by implication, you know it is offensive - if I am in company with friends, I don't find sweet words to justify offensive behaviours or comments, I just do not do it.

Golliwogs are offensive to me, it has a history of racial abuse behind it - that is my experience and of many others.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-21-2013, 08:29 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by cckerberos View Post
You might find this article interesting.
That is indeed interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.