You need Facebook to look and see the Outrage (both For and Against).
But if you can’t be bothered it’s some asking if this (I believe) British (maybe not UK-wide) toy that the OP wants brought back after being banned/no longer used.
I don’t see the problem, it’s just a doll with a distinctive artistic style. If people want to make/buy them Ithen they should be able to, as with any other doll.
I can almost see this point of view. Raggedy Ann and Andy are almost in this style. But neither the Ann/Andys nor this doll are anywhere near the color representative of the children who played with them.
Good thing I gave my boys baby dolls that had Flesh color skins (because there weren’t any dark beige to tan-ish red ones back then… or now??).
While I do find that Golliwog Doll repugnant (simply because it doesn’t look like a face anyone has ever had* but rather… a simplistic stylization of a face that a 4th grader can do better than)… I did let my boys have Teletubby dolls (including… that One with the funny vocalization… back then.)
*Ok, someone, somewhere… might have looked like that. Maybe. Poor wo/man.
I looked at that Facebook link and checked out the comments. Virtually every single comment said something to the effect of “Bring back Mister Golliwog! He’s a harmless doll. This is PC gone mad!” etc… but not a single one was written by a black person.
English people like to pretend we’re more racially enlightened than the US, but shit like this proves there are still a ton of oblivious motherfuckers in the UK.
I’m trying to recall any similar posts in the US along the same lines just for comparison. Unfortunately I’ve been up for 24 hours, the booze has eclipsed the red or white blood cells so my google-fu is weak.
But I bet there is a FB post out there with about the same amount of likes in the same amount of time for “Confederate Flags should be flown” or “Redskins is fine”.
I’m not surprised that it used to be used/accepted. ( minstrels, Sambo, etc.) And, I can certainly see why it fell out of favour. What I can’t understand is the desire for White people to want it to come back, and to be shocked, shocked I say, that it can be offensive.
Quite simply they don’t understand why it is offensive. I had a discussion about racially offensive terms with my 70+ dad once about why he shouldn’t refer to the Chinese takeaway as ‘The Chinky’ and he genuinely believed that an American that once called him a Limey in a slightly angry way was the same thing as calling a Chinese person a Chink.
Apparently there was a similar character on some brand of Finnish candy, as I have a Finnish friend who is always complaining that they aren’t allowed to use that character anymore. All my efforts to explain to her have gone without effect.
This is purely anecdotal, but in my experience my European friends (and I have many) have difficulty with cultural sensitivity. I suspect this is because their societies are (or at least were) much more homogeneous.
And then there’s stuff like this which shows that without people updating him with facts via an earpiece, Stephen Fry isn’t the genius people seem to think he is.
There was, they used to sell it here in Sweden and I have seen it myself.
Hell, we had an argument in another forum where someone genuinely thought ‘negerboll’ (negro ball) was an ok name for a chocolate treat in Sweden. For bonus marks he/she started talking about all his/her black friends.
Given the age of the quote, the off-the-cuff nature of the quote, the (admitted by the blogger) murky context of the quote, and the lack of evidence that Fry has been promoting that quote as a profound truth, I would hardly spend a lot of effort attacking Fry. If he has been going about repeating that line as an attack on those who are being subject to harassment, (which I have not encountered), I could see the point of the criticism. Otherwise: meh.
The golliwog thing quite often comes up in the UK in “PC gone mad” type arguments. It’s almost achieved iconic status for some people (racists, basically).
I remember the golliwog logo on jam jars from when I was a kid (80s, possibly even 90s). Even to a kid it seemed a bit iffy at the time. The jam company eventually saw sense and got rid of it.
What specifically are you referring to? The picture of the jam character that the OP linked to strikes me as inherently innocent, and no more a “disgusting deliberate attempt to portray people from other races as animalistic and subhuman” than, say, the Jack In The Box mascot (or, as mistymage brought up, Raggedy Ann and Andy) is an attempt to portray white people as animalistic and subhuman. It seems unfair to say that cartoon characters and simplistic, stylized depictions can only be white.
There may well be a serious problem with that particular logo, but if so, it’s guilt by association, and I and probably many other people aren’t familiar with those associations.
*“These statues were used as markers on the Underground Railroad throughout the South into Canada,” says historian/author Charles Blockson, curator of the Afro-American Collection at Temple University in Philadelphia. "Green ribbons were tied to the arms of the statue to indicate safety; red ribbons meant to keep going.
“People who don’t know the history of the jockey have feelings of humiliation and anger when they see the statue,” he adds. “But this figure, which was sometimes used in a clandestine nature, and sometimes without the knowledge of the person who owned the statue, was a positive and supportive image to African-Americans on the road to freedom.”
Sometimes, adds Blockson, a flag was put into the hand of the statue to indicate safety.
It’s because of this role that jockeys–or their precursors, the groomsmen, which were dressed in slave’s clothing–have become sought-after collectibles."*
Earlier this year Mr Chaka Artwell was interviewed by a local BBC news crew regarding the plans for a local swimming pool. He made good points, well put, but the producer realised the footage couldn’t be used. They asked Mr Artwell to repeat the interview. He asked why. The BBC explained the golliwog pinned to his chest was offensive and they needed to film again with it removed.
Mr Artwell is himself black and while he looks a bit of a character he appears to be sincere and pointed out he was not offended and considers the golliwog a friend. He refused to remove his golliwog and the BBC refused to use the footage.
Mr Artwell also noted he, and others of colour, loved the golliwog toys when they were kids growing up. Probably because in my experience in 1970s (and earlier) UK the only vaguely human looking toy in the toy box with a dark skin tone was the golliwog. Or the very rare (in the UK) Action Man doll with a dark complexion.
I’ve heard of and seen golliwog dolls. Even if the dolls are inoffensive, I’ve heard the term ‘golliwog’ used as a racial epithet. And, of course, it was shortened to ‘wogs’ – which is definitely an insult – and is still heard sometimes even now.
