It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Golliwoggs: How are they offensive?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Give a kid a Golliwog doll nowadays what would they care what colour it was or the name it was sold by.........they would give it a name like they would if you had bought them a puppy dog, and not be bothered about the name Golliwog...........more than likely they wouldn't understand the connections to the name.

To be honest I grew up in the 70's and remember the doll, my sister had one, and did I view that doll has a coloured person, no not at all it was just a doll, just as Action Man / G.I. Joe, Sindy/Barbie etc are white coloured dolls......... it is just the adults who see this as a problem, the same adults who would do anything to put a smile on their own kids faces and then complain about a doll and spoil it for other kids.

Euthanasia when you turn 21 is the answer me thinks.

[edit on 20/8/09 by Wolfie_UK]




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I think what makes the Golliwoggs offensive is that they're a caricature of old-time minstrel show performers, who in turn were caricatures of Black people. Minstrel performers, usually whites, would paint their faces black and smear on exaggerated lips, performing in a way that ridiculed the stereotyped behavior of Black people, portraying them in negative ways. If you want an example, check out this picture.

The dolls characterize such grotesque portrayals.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I agree with the OP.

How can anyone find them offensive?

They're a fictional depiction of a stage show character.

One of my good mates is a black man and he doesn't find them offensive..


What are we going to start finding offense in leprechauns next?



[edit on 20-8-2009 by USER]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
As it was explained to me, the "Golli" part of the word refers to an old time belief of white people that black people looked perpetually surprised, as if saying, "Golly!" (because their eyes stand out in better contrast? IDK) Whatever, Golliwog & Wog are both offensive racial epithets.
To illustrate - some of my own experience:
In my mid to late teens I spent a lot of time around a group of older Jamaicans who would often refer to me as "pasty white bwoy". I must stress that I never felt like they did so disparagingly or discriminatorily, more like in the same way I might say "alright bastard?" by way of greeting. I did sometimes hear "pasty" used to/about other white people derogatorily tho. Anyway, I had bigger fish to fry & never mentioned it. A good few years later tho, I was talking with some other Jamaicans about racial slurs so I asked.
Apparently, if you grow up in Jamaica, the only pale white people you see are just arrived tourists, the rest are well suntanned & thus pallid looks ill in comparison.
What am I on about? Well, lets imagine that black kids were given chalk-white dolls with exaggeratedly tiny facial features called 'illhonkies', or Japanese kids got something that looked like a sasquatch with circular eyes called 'roundeye-apes', or Australian Aboriginies got charicature dolls called 'fatbastards'. Does anyone else think this might cause complaints, or am I in a world of my own?
Sadly racism isn't dead yet & thus when a black person can reasonably expect to encounter it, there's no good reason to give them the idea that we might be racist through a doll. It is just a doll, so its worthless in comparison to the upset it might cause & no hardship to be without.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Oops, double post!

[edit on 20/8/09 by Bunken Drum]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Has the world gone mad?

YES.

Bleeding Hearts have forced us into such ridiculous attitudes simply by the application of pressure on our lawmakers and cultural identities.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Yes - it's just a doll.

Does it not depend on the context or the way it is meant?

Are we all to forget history and become ultra-politically correct?

When you have black people calling one-another "N**ger" in song lyrics......

Is that not worse??

Or is it OK because they're black?????




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by USER
 

Yes - it's just a doll.
Does it not depend on the context or the way it is meant?
Well how does a black person know what is meant when they see a doll with exaggerated features thats name is also a racist epithet? Consider: a young white child is given a Gollywog. She goes to nursery & meets a young black child & says, "You're like a Gollywog!" in complete innocence. Probably the black child has no idea what that means, so he asks his mum. What is she to think, knowing full well that her son may well be encountering racism?
Perhaps she should attempt to confront the girls parents, or the nursery staff? Maybe, since there could well be racism involved, she would feel afraid that to do so might rebound on her or her son. But she can hardly ignore it. So is she to interrogate the lad every day to try to figure out whether or not he is being badly treated, take him out of the nursery, try to explain racism to a 3yr old?
I submit that the whole situation is unnecessary. No child will miss having such a doll & if someone is an avid collector of them, there's no need to have them on display in public.

Are we all to forget history and become ultra-politically correct?
Well, I think that the phrase "politically correct" gets bandied around far too much & has come to be synonymous with ridiculous. In this case however, since we're talking about racism & an object with a clearly understood racist epithet as its name, then no indeed we should not forget history. Let us all remember that only a few decades ago there were signs on the doors of B&Bs saying "No Dogs. No Irish. No Blacks." Let's also not forget that many of our ancestors were proper arseholes too & that whilst slavery & obvious persecution are no longer possible, that doesn't mean that the attitudes that went with have completely died out.
IDK about the N-word. Personally, I'm uncomfortable hearing it.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Although I thoroughly disagree with all the PCism these days, a previous poster was correct in that originally these Golliwog dolls were created out of a culture of racism, they were charactures of 19th century minstrels, the minstrel shows were white performers in black-face portraying the black man in a very slapstick and degrading manner, the dolls are a direct representation of the minstrel; very dark face, very red lips, woolly hair and the typical minstrel outfit.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


Cant?!

PROVE IT.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
For those who didn't click the link I put on the last page. This is the racial problem with the Golliwog doll. They started off as a book. And there were three charactures. See bellow for details. Warning, racial content.

I'm probably going to get in trouble for posting this, but please remember context context context.



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. Ten Little Niggers is the name of a children's poem, sometimes set to music, which celebrates the deaths of ten Black children, one-by-one. The Three Golliwogs was reprinted as recently as 1968, and it still contained the above passage. Ten Little Niggers was also the name of a 1939 Agatha Christie novel, whose cover showed a Golliwog lynched, hanging from a noose.


www.golliwogg.co.uk...

The offensive thing is not a black doll. That's just silly. It's the background that this particular black doll has. And as you can see. It's not very pretty.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
I think it's ridiculous

In my opinion, blacks are one step away from carrying on like the jews with their 'anti-semite' nonsense every time they're caught out

It's the same tactic: play the victim, play the 'race' card (although jews are not a race, Judaism is a religion and I will brook no argument over that: it's my opinion and I think it's valid) and try to make 'whites' (and non-jews) feel 'guilty' every minute of their lives

It's sour grapes from the black community, imo. They tell themselves 'whites' have everything and this leads to their believing 'whites' should have to suffer because blacks are black.

The PC brigade have gone along with it, because it fits right in with their 'destroy white culture' agenda (of which the abomination known as 'multiculturalism' is just a part).

What are non-blacks supposed to do .. pretend blacks are not blacks ? Seems that way.

Look, it's not the 'fault' of white's that they're white. And they should not be required to apologise for it to appease non-whites.

What about 'white' dolls ? Do whites leap around playing victim about those ?

Then why the fuss about 'black' dolls ?

Why don't people accept who and what they are without trying to make someone else 'pay for it' ?

When I was young, there were double-dolls. They looked pretty much like a normal doll, but it you pulled up the skirt, there was another doll underneath that. And it you up-ended the doll, the first doll vanished beneath the skirt. They were made by joining two dolls together at the waist. One end was black, the other white. So you could play with the black dolly or the white one. They were very popular. Are they 'banned' and non-PC also ? Why? Are there not black and white people on the planet ? Or are we supposed to pretend blacks don't exist .. and if anyone creates anything representative of blacks, then will blacks claim to be offended ?

What colour dolls do kids play with in Africa ? Relevant question



You think its ridiculous becuase you have no real idea what the issues are. You are constantly creating posts where you demonize entire civilisations (the Italians which are the foundation of all modern western civilisation) as backwards and introspective racists based upon a limited, narrow perspective of exceptionally specific individuals - you did the same thing with Muslims and demonized the entire religion as rapists and worse based upon the acitivities of a small selective, isolated group - it was really quite disgusting - and you are in every single way the epitome of what society at large terms a racist.

Your views and ideas are more than merely racist they are extreme. But you clearly do not feel that, you clearly feel that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and are completely incapable of understanding what the issue is, and why it is relevant to the wider community and therefore why it is that you are an extremist and a hard core racist - so perhaps you should take the time to read on and find out why it is you are ignorant about these issues.

Your very initial position is the premise of racism, in fact extremist Arianism from which Nazism was derived, all stemming from American and British Eugenics- a truly dark premise.

Your initial position is not to try and understand why there may be a need to assist cultural communities, be they black or Muslim, rather it is based on a feeling that this is somehow an attack on yourself. The exact analogy would be to compare your total disdain for helping and considering the hardships of the socially disaffected through cultural bias (racism) to those with physical or mental disabilities - you are specifically questioning why we should consider those with special needs as an injustice to those who do not have those needs.

In order to justify your position you have systematically denied any cultural or historical background which affects these people in order to place their circumstances on an equal footing. This allows you to simply judge the position from an equal footing, as though that were in any way a reflection of reality. When it is not. You have made reference to the idea that Italians speak with other Italians, they associate with other Italians, speak Italian, and continue Italian customs. As though this were somehow a form of racism - clearly you would never have to give up your being white, and your customs in order not to appear racist - it is utterly ridiculous. The insistence that others simulate you and your customs and ways is THE MOST racist position one can take. Yes there may be some difficulty for people understanding that other cultures have different practices however most people are able to understand this and accept, even cherish the differences between us as diversity - it is only the most racist amongst us who insist that others should act the same as ourselves.

Further there is an inability in your position to distinguish between the actions of a fool and their cultural identity. Your reasoning is that the action of a Muslim are the actions of Muslims - rather than the actions of a man. So when a group of Muslim men rape a woman Islam is a vile culture rather than seeing it as the actions of a group of stupid young men. Young stupid men of every pursuasion do stupid things - we do not simply start racist taunts based upon their religion or culture - we try to understand what is at heart of the problem.

Now there are two other issues you simply refuse to acknowledge as to do so undermines much of your position - even to your own closed mind. The first of these is why is it that whites are the ones who are always accused of being the racist ones, when others can say racist things about whites, and why should we help specific cultures based upon their race while excluding others based on their race - isn't that racism? Well again, consider the person in the wheel chair, spine broken because a white person put them there for self gain and power. Now consider should the white person assist that person ? Should we provide a platform so they may see the concert we are all enjoying ? Should we not create something for that person to use exclusively ? We should and here is why - whether you are able to acknowledge it or not whites have a long and exceedingly dark history of racism against not simply non whites, other cultures but also different religions. It is in our very blood and is the defining feature of the past two thousand years of modern history. The violence of our entire culture, history our very being is based upon intolerance, hatred of others, suppression and oppression of others, and quite simply an unbelievable track record of heinous crimes against non-whites. You will undoubtedly be able to point to other races, but nothing will ever compare to our own bloody sordid past - nothing. But even if you can, that is not the point, you have missed it entirely. The point is that we are the ones who have done the henious crimes, WE. Whether OTHERS have or not is for them to decide, for them to deal with. However history shows us that this has almost never been the case - except for perhaps the Japanese.

So there are two points to take away from this. AS a race, a white race, we have without any shadow of a doubt been the most destructive racist force this planet has ever seen - and we have two options which are most commonly seen -the first is to embrace ourselves Aryan white supremacists (which is pretty much all we see on ATS - hence why you joined) defend and expand our position of dominance and aggression through the suppression and dominance of other races, or we can try collectively to stave off this blight on our culture and make amends for it by resisting the temptation to continue the habit (as you clearly are unable to do) and in order to achieve this there must be a recognition of ourselves as the main perpetrators of racist aggression as evidenced by history.

So why do we select out specific cultures for assistance ? Because they are part of the oppressed as a collective group and also because it is the right thing to do. It may come as a surprise to you that hating others for receiving help when they need it, resenting others the care and assistance they need, begrudging the helpless is a particularly nasty and spiteful outlook to hol din life and is very, very much considered racist.

One of the most defining features of a hard core racist is that very trait. Teh begrudging of help to those less fortunate. The tendency to selectively associate cultures by race when it suits is most apparent here as well - how is it that we can selectively help Aboriginals as a group when many are better off than me - without ever considering what has been done to their entire race, whether their race is coping whether or not our race has a collective duty to help based on past actions OR based on our own common human desire to simply do the right moral thing. It is almost always at this point where selective amnesia will interupt with a desire not to consider our past, to move on etc - which again simply points to the will to racism.

The only real difference between someone who is a racist, and someone who is not, is the tolerance and willingness to understand. You are unwilling to try and understand the issues, and there fore are able to dismiss anything which will clarify your racist outlook. You are a racist because you want to be, you do not wish to end it, it is who you are and who you want to be - if you did not wish to be a racist you could simply try and understand why people are trying to help, and why they are trying to show tolerance, understanding and progressive ethics. It is harder and takes courage - your racist position is driven by fear and laziness. But understand one thing - your posts on this site are clearly, without any doubt are extremely racist. Do you want to be a racist or not ?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join