Golliwog in the window - should this really be in court?

[Mation]

I don't think it is a bizarre anaology. Because I don't believe the Golliwog character or toy was created as a shorthand for depicting black people or as a weapon of racism.

I fully accept that it became those things. I don't believe it was intended to be those things.

You're wrong though. It was and it's easily googlable.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a belief.

Do you believe the golliwog was designed as a tool for racism?

I appreciate the characters look is steeped in minstrel imagery and became an accepted depiction/caricature of black people across the world, but I don't believe those original golliwog characters and dolls were anything more than a toy, or an illustrated character in a childrens book.

Origins, image and intent all clash which is why the golliwog is a controversial subject that often descends in to silliness when discussed.

I don't think any of that makes me revisionist.

 

[ymu]

Your beliefs must have come from somewhere. Where's the evidence for that?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

You're wrong though. It was and it's easily googlable.

Well, if it's easily googlable....what more need to I have for my own opinion.

 

[ymu]

Some kind of evidence that does not originate entirely from within your own head.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Some kind of evidence that does not originate entirely from within your own head.

I don't have any evidence that the childrens books were not intended as a racist manifesto or that the doll was not intended as reminder of white supremacy and designed to wave at black people in an act of cruel superiority.

You win. I'm a stupid ignorant racist.

 

[ymu]

I don't think you're a stupid ignorant racist. I'm shocked and surprised to see you making this argument.

You don't think 19th century depictions of black people were racist? I can only assume you've never looked at 19th century depictions of black people in any kind of detail. Ever heard of Tintin au Congo?

And it's not good enough to say that they were an innocent product of their time. Their were anti-racists back then too.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I don't think you're a stupid ignorant racist. I'm shocked and surprised to see you making this argument.

Like I've said, I'm not making an argument.

So do I think 19th Century depictions and caricatures were racist? Yes, I believe some were intended to be and some appropriated to be.

It may not be good enough to say that they were an innocent product of their time, but some of them were and they existed as so. What is not good enough is to continue to allow an innocent product of its time to remain in circulation as an 'icon' of that time. I don't believe that is healthy.

I don't think it's acceptable to display golliwogs (to taunt or otherwise) and stand them up as an emblem of our youth that we should be allowed to hold on to because we have fond memories of them. I grew up in a time when the word 'wog' was used commonly, I know what the connection is within my timeline, I knew it then, and in my world it was the most used word to describe black people. I understand the need to remove Golliwogs to the toy box of history forever. We had lots in our house when I was growing up.

As for them being on display in museums (back a couple of pages), I think that's fine as long as they are displayed in context. I'd quite like to go to The Children's Museum to see a banned and controversial toy exhibition.

My monkey chant comment was a poorly made point about how silly these discussions can get. It didn't fly......I'll try harder next time.

 

[Mation]

I don't have any evidence that the childrens books were not intended as a racist manifesto or that the doll was not intended as reminder of white supremacy and designed to wave at black people in an act of cruel superiority.

You win. I'm a stupid ignorant racist.

But Nanker, there is evidence that there were. Not just current interpretations. That's why it's bizarre to hear you arguing about your feeling about it as it just sounds like you talking about how you imagine things might have been in the face of evidence to the contrary.

FWIW I can see why golliwogs would be on display in the children's museum, though I'd like to see some contextual explanation as part of the exhibit.

 

[Firky]

I can't still believe this stupid argument still exists on this forum for 13 fucking years now.

Blacks and gays, what should I call 'them' ? Another recent classic.

Next week: Women, are they really equal if so how come they're never bosses?

 

[ymu]

People make the same complaint about Palestine threads. If there weren't so many people willing to defend the indefensible, there wouldn't be so many of them.

 

[Treacle Toes]

...because my hands aren't big enough to facepalm with the force i'd like...

What do you make of these images, language and associations? Rhetorical question.

Oh....and read this if you like, one of hundreds of articles etc available:

For the past four decades Europeans have debated whether the Golliwog is a lovable icon or a racist symbol. In the 1960s relations between Blacks and Whites in England were often characterised by conflict. This racial antagonism resulted from many factors, including: the arrival of increasing numbers of coloured immigrants; minorities’ unwillingness to accommodate themselves to old patterns of racial and ethnic subordination; and, the fear among many Whites that England was losing its national character. British culture was also influenced by images – often brutal – of racial conflict occurring in the United States.

The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton’s, Blyton’s Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and Nigger, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn’t quite ready so Woggie and Nigger said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and Nigger, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song – which, as you may guess, was Ten Little Nigger Boys.

More here:
http://mulattodiaries.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/ten-little-what/


Oh and this:

In 1895, her book, entitled "The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg", 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." The little black "gnome" wore bright red trousers, a red bow tie on a high collared white shirt, and a blue swallow-tailed coat. He was a caricature of American black faced minstrels - in effect, the caricature of a caricature. She named him Golliwogg.



The Golliwogg was based on a Black minstrel doll that Upton had played with as a small child in New York. The then-nameless "Negro minstrel doll" was treated roughly by the Upton children. Upton reminiscenced: "Seated upon a flowerpot in the garden, his kindly face was a target for rubber balls..., the game being to knock him over backwards. It pains me now to think of those little rag legs flying ignominiously over his head, yet that was a long time ago, and before he had become a personality.... We knew he was ugly!"

http://www.golliwogg.co.uk/history.htm

 

[frogwoman]

enid blyton was a fucking wrongun. as was agatha christie.

 

[existentialist]

I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a belief.

Do you believe the golliwog was designed as a tool for racism?

I appreciate the characters look is steeped in minstrel imagery and became an accepted depiction/caricature of black people across the world, but I don't believe those original golliwog characters and dolls were anything more than a toy, or an illustrated character in a childrens book.

Origins, image and intent all clash which is why the golliwog is a controversial subject that often descends in to silliness when discussed.

I don't think any of that makes me revisionist.

Of course golliwogs weren't designed as a tool for racism - the concept of racism, as we recognise it, didn't exist at the point that the golliwog, as a depiction of black people, took its rise.

But a whole cultural iconography around golliwogs developed which is, generally speaking, regarded as treating black people as somehow "less than" whites - a stereotype which demeans them and writes them off as childlike, less competent/serious than white people, etc. And, from that, a view that the depiction of golliwogs is associated with what we generally now consider to be racist attitudes towards black people. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way, and perhaps that small number of people whose fond memories of the iconography is so strong as to override the racist connotations are genuine. But the point is that, nowadays, most people DO associate golliwogs with at the very least a patronising attitude towards black people, and anyone who insists, whatever their justification, that that association doesn't exist is going to get a hard time for it.

You could argue the same about the word "nigger". After all, it's only a collection of letters, and it takes its origin from a Latin word meaning "black" - why on earth should anyone regard it as offensive? But the fact is that it is a term that has come into common use as a derogatory word for whites to use about people of colour, and anyone using it otherwise needs to be aware of that baggage: generally speaking, it's just easier to avoid using the term. Tyranny of the majority? Perhaps. PC gawn maaaad? Quite possibly. Live with it.

ETA: better make some things clear.

I don't mean racism didn't exist when golliwogs took their rise - simply that the idea of it as being an exceptionable way of thinking wasn't exactly mainstream.

I DO think that a lot of the depictions of golliwogs were, at the time, "innocent" in that they were simply a reflection of prevailing attitudes, rather than an explicit statement of racism.

And I think that a lot of the equally innocent spluttering and protest by people today who maintain that their own particular use of now-considered-racist iconography and terms is equivalent to that: they may not be actively promoting racism, but in their insistence that this iconography/language should continue to be normalised, they are to some extent legitimising it.

 

[frogwoman]

same with the writer of the "just william" stories, nakedly classist and racist with the "rough boys" being portrayed as rude cunts and one of the stories revolving around william and his mates bullying a jewish man by pretending to be nazis.and see many other writers of the period.

as ymu says there were plenty of anti-racists during the period, the 30s is when cable street took place ffs.

 

[Treacle Toes]

enid blyton was a fucking wrongun. as was agatha christie.

I really do think they were 'of their time' as others put it, the difference is that I don't say it to excuse their racism or how their reflected the racism of the time... I say 'of their time' with acceptance of what that means/meant.

That said, it is foul and painful for me as it still has relevance to my own and others experiences of racism and denial of those experiences; the associations are there, they are well documented, that others still argue this stuff is beyond me and very often just another example of how my voice/experiences and intelligence is dismissed. Deliberate or not, the result is the same.

 

[frogwoman]

I really do think they were 'of their time' as others put it, the difference is that I don't say it to excuse their racism or how their reflected the racism of the time... I say 'of their time' with acceptance of what that means/meant, however foul and painful that is for me as it still has relevance to my own and others experiences of racism and denial of those experiences, that others still argue this stuff is beyond me.

yeah

thing is there have always been people who challenged this stuff, albeit perhaps in less PC terms and language than we'd like , there have always been people who fought against the prevailing attitudes of the time and we dont know how widespread those attitudes really are among the majority of people, dont forget a lot of people in the time enid blyton etc were writing about could not even read still less be in a position to have access to the mediums to challenge the perceptions of them portrayed in those books. the rest of the w/c were regarded by them with even worse disdain and so those with anti racist beliefs or whatever were simply ignored or not heard at all.

i don't think the fact it was a long time ago is any kind of excuse tbh. there was a book by a doctor in 1891 advocating the nationalisation of the health service, there were people like the chartists, the luddites etc and the dockers in bristol and elsewhere who successfully struggled against slavery, there have always been people who've been willing to fight against racism, anti-semitism, sexism etc

 

[Treacle Toes]

Froggy

Just want to say I edited my post to add more, didn't change the sentiment though.

 

[ymu]

same with the writer of the "just william" stories, nakedly classist and racist with the "rough boys" being portrayed as rude cunts and one of the stories revolving around william and his mates bullying a jewish man by pretending to be nazis.and see many other writers of the period.

as ymu says there were plenty of anti-racists during the period, the 30s is when cable street took place ffs.

I meant long before Cable Street. The Quakers were active anti-racists during the 19th century.

 

[frogwoman]

I meant long before Cable Street. The Quakers were active anti-racists during the 19th century.

afaik the actions of bristol dockers also helped to get slavery banned?

 

[frogwoman]

yer it just pisses me off when people say that racism existed and was acceptable "due to the time". thats what will be said in 50 years about racism here. the fact is that most people are not and were never racist and many of them actively fought against it. im not saying this to minimise the racism that existed, but i don't like it when people try to excuse stuff by saying that it was 100 years ago and thats what people did in those days. at the time golliwogs were invented nobody was living in caves ffs

 

[ymu]

Yes. And cotton-workers who starved rather than process cotton from slave plantations. The working-class has a long and honourable history wrt anti-racism.

 

[frogwoman]

yes and how these periods are remembered is very much down to who writes them.

 

[Mation]

Of course golliwogs weren't designed as a tool for racism - the concept of racism, as we recognise it, didn't exist at the point that the golliwog, as a depiction of black people, took its rise.

But a whole cultural iconography around golliwogs developed which is, generally speaking, regarded as treating black people as somehow "less than" whites - a stereotype which demeans them and writes them off as childlike, less competent/serious than white people, etc. And, from that, a view that the depiction of golliwogs is associated with what we generally now consider to be racist attitudes towards black people. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way, and perhaps that small number of people whose fond memories of the iconography is so strong as to override the racist connotations are genuine. But the point is that, nowadays, most people DO associate golliwogs with at the very least a patronising attitude towards black people, and anyone who insists, whatever their justification, that that association doesn't exist is going to get a hard time for it.

You could argue the same about the word "nigger". After all, it's only a collection of letters, and it takes its origin from a Latin word meaning "black" - why on earth should anyone regard it as offensive? But the fact is that it is a term that has come into common use as a derogatory word for whites to use about people of colour, and anyone using it otherwise needs to be aware of that baggage: generally speaking, it's just easier to avoid using the term. Tyranny of the majority? Perhaps. PC gawn maaaad? Quite possibly. Live with it.

ETA: better make some things clear.

I don't mean racism didn't exist when golliwogs took their rise - simply that the idea of it as being an exceptionable way of thinking wasn't exactly mainstream.

I DO think that a lot of the depictions of golliwogs were, at the time, "innocent" in that they were simply a reflection of prevailing attitudes, rather than an explicit statement of racism.

And I think that a lot of the equally innocent spluttering and protest by people today who maintain that their own particular use of now-considered-racist iconography and terms is equivalent to that: they may not be actively promoting racism, but in their insistence that this iconography/language should continue to be normalised, they are to some extent legitimising it.

to be fair to Nanker though (although I'm sure he can speak for himself!), I think he did say that he understands that all of that developed.

While I do understand what you mean about yesteryear's "innocence", there was active anti-racism at the time too; there were other options.

 

[The39thStep]

same with the writer of the "just william" stories, nakedly classist and racist with the "rough boys" being portrayed as rude cunts and one of the stories revolving around william and his mates bullying a jewish man by pretending to be nazis.and see many other writers of the period.

as ymu says there were plenty of anti-racists during the period, the 30s is when cable street took place ffs.

To be fair most of the Golliwogs in Noddy were good Golliwogs , it was a group of bad Golliwogs that robbed Noddy in the Dark Dark Woods.

As my mum used to say 'there is good and bad in everyone'.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Blyton was also quite anti-police. Remember PC Goon?

 

[frogwoman]

there were lots of people especially in cities with major ports such as liverpool and london who had lived and worked alongside black and asian people for a lot longer than is commonly thought. you also have to remember that where racism did exist it was often out of total ignorance as few people outside of those areas had ever met a black person.

i think a lot of this stuff (golliwogs and the like)could have developed as a sort of indirect response to what the british empire was doing around the world. black people being captured and brought to england to be paraded as freaks etc. the whole "soft power" thing and the popular culture.

 

[frogwoman]

To be fair most of the Golliwogs in Noddy were good Golliwogs , it was a group of bad Golliwogs that robbed Noddy in the Dark Dark Woods.

As my mum used to say 'there is good and bad in everyone'.

yer, theres a few other strange things in enid blyton's stories tho.

 

[Citizen66]

yes and how these periods are remembered is very much down to who writes them.

And the audience they catered for. So not many come out of it looking well.

 

[Firky]

Can we discuss if "paki" is racist or just an abbreviation whilst we're on shit topics?