It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Merriman WeirWoah! Where are these jew dolls that alleged racists apparently give to their children to affectionately play with or see in the same paradigm as their other toys? I've never said they exist! That they don't is part of the point I'm making.
I've never said that 'jew toys = bad / black toys = good' or even suggested it! ...Nazis used propaganda to create hate figures. Manufacturers manage to sell gollys because people actually like them. Unless, of course, you are under some bizarre delusion that people buy these toys in order to mistreat them, burn them or hold mock lynchings.
Again, where's this coming from? So a doll, bought then given to someone else reinforces the idea that black people were also bought and owned?
I'd better throw out my collection of blues, jazz and ska records then - just in case someone thinks I'm reenforcing the idea of 'black people as commodity'. I know, I'll boycott products with black people on them or in them! Hmm, haven't I seen this before? Didn't this happen in America because of a racist ideology?
Do you think that "programming a child's mind with ideas and thinking patterns" only works in a negative way and only reinforces slavery?
If you're referring to the points you're trying to make about Jewish people compared to blacks; see above regarding your point about Jewish dolls - of which I don't think I've actually seen.
Someone, after a string of other allegations that weren't upheld and the accused not actually charged, claimed to be offended. All we know is that the person claimed to be offended (and, unless you're a mind-reader/remote-viewer combo, you can't say for certain either - you simply don't know) and when the police looked into the matter, the woman with the doll wasn't charged with anything.
What Jewish items? I'm not describing any Jewish items! You were the one that seemed to pluck 'Jewish dolls' out of the air! The only mention I made was of Nazi Jewish stereotypes, which usually took the form of illustrations. I'm not aware of the Nazis making Jew dolls for children, and, given their sickening racist ideology, I'm not sure that they'd have want to.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that the word 'gollywog' might have been under a censor blanket so I didn't even bother typing the word out.
You really are misunderstanding the point I made. The confusion I referred to lies in the common misunderstanding that the gollies in the book are direct analogues of black people, that they are direct representations of black people. When, in fact, there were actually black children in some of Enid Blyton's books. Blyton's gollies were, first and foremost, dolls.
Are you trying to make out that I'm racist or something and are so desperate to do so that you're either mistakenly or wilfully misreading my posts? I really hope that's not the case.
Now, God forbid, there was a spate of racist attacks in your home town and the racists called them themselves the 'Smurf Krew' and left calling cards like some of the football 'firms' have done (or still do) with Smurfs on them, what would that mean? That Smurfs have inherently racist properties?
Originally posted by u4ria
Im sorry but if i want to own a gollywog i will if i want to use the N-word i will and no chip wielding or goody goody person will stop me
Originally posted by skibtz
And that is it right there.
You can do what you want. You can say what you want.
You can also expect the law to stop you should the need arise.
Originally posted by skibtz
Sorry. Confused.I thought you raised the whole Nazi/Jewish element. If you weren't comparing like for like then what were you doing?
Seeing as you brought the Nazi/Jewish element into the equation then let's address it. I see no difference between the two. You seem to think that it is ok to defend the Jews from the abuse by the Nazis but you stop at defending black people from the golliwog (not golly or gollitoy).
You imply that toys are harmless. I am saying that they can be useful tools of manipulation and programming.
I am not sure how you got from toys that reinforce stereotypes to a record collection.
Insofar as a golliwog, I do not see the positive attributes. So yes would be my first response.
Hey. You brought Nazi/Jew to the table not me.
The other party WAS, not claimed to be, offended. As I stated in my first post, we know very little about the history or the actual event to make any definite decision.
Well that is good to hear. Seriously. I honestly thought that there were jewish dolls out there! I do apologise for that rather poor assumption.
Originally posted by Merriman WeirDo you not accept that they are thought affectionately of, in completely non-racist ways though? If so, surely that's positive?
Yet you seem certain that the person who claimed to be was offended.
No problem. And seriously , I'm not the racist that at times I've been worried that you're trying to paint
Originally posted by u4riai looked at the pictures and i see the glollywog has big curly hair and big white eyes and i see the same with the image below BUT is it not true that when you see a person with very deep black pigment you notice the eyes and lips stand out more ?
Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by u4ria
I'm saving my responses for those who wish to indulge in a debate, not a ridiculous "well you say this, i say that" slanging match.
[edit on 9/21/2008 by blupblup]
I would avoid if i were you, It will be difficult to keep this civil if we engage this person.....
Originally posted by u4ria
...skibtz what are you getting at ?
is it not true that when you see a person with very deep black pigment you notice the eyes and lips stand out more?