Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 120144	2011-08-26 23:27:00	Golliwogs in Auckland !!	Iantech (16386)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1226502	2011-08-27 23:58:00	Its probably racist to remove it, by getting rid of the black one we are therefore promoting white supremacy with all the asians and the white ones who spent too long in a tanning bed/ got dipped in iodene. Good one! Seriously, grow up complainant. I had a gollywog (dunno where it went) but its was nice and warm on cold nights!! And it was black.	The Error Guy (14052)
1226503	2011-08-28 00:06:00	Its probably racist to remove it, by getting rid of the black one we are therefore promoting white supremacy with all the asians and the white ones who spent too long in a tanning bed/ got dipped in iodene. Good one! Seriously, grow up complainant. I had a gollywog (dunno where it went) but its was nice and warm on cold nights!! And it was black. Have to agree there. :thumbs:	Bobh (5192)
1226504	2011-08-28 10:48:00	Racist the shop owner is selling black coloured dolls.. Yes Is it racist now that he is only allowed to sell white dolls and not coloured ones? No So is the word "golliwogs" considered a racist or offensive word? Yes Is the Auckland Airport management being racist by preventing him from selling a little black dolly but have no issue with the shop selling white dollys? Or, is there another reason this whole issue is racist? No and Yes. A "racist" act is doing something which scorns, or belittles a disadvantaged racial group. By contrast an act which does the same for a dominant powerful racial group is not racist because it has no effect. The dominant group don't care. To us the word gollywog is benign but Golliwog is a racial slur in Germany, England, Ireland, Greece, and the USA, much the same as wog and nigger. It is not a word or a doll which you can use without risking a strong reaction. Why bother offending people. The world has enough tension without adding to it simply to sell a doll. Here is a good history of the gollywog and the politics which arose in the mid-20th century.	Winston001 (3612)
1226505	2011-08-28 14:17:00	A "racist" act is doing something which scorns, or belittles a disadvantaged racial group. Isn't calling a disadvantaged racial group a disadvantaged racial group racist in itself? Shouldn't we be calling said groups some PC crap like "differently-advantaged" ? :rolleyes: In any case, the only problem I can see with them is that they are traditionally associated with racism. But I doubt the shop selling them was doing so in an intentionally racist way. And as Iantech already pointed out, wouldn't a child prefer a doll the same colour as themselves? Then again, maybe they'd be just as happy with one of any colour, because before a certain age nobody has actually learned to be racist yet.... :groan: Ps: I'm surprised the forum filter doesn't blank out n****r...	Agent_24 (57)
1226506	2011-08-28 22:48:00	A "racist" act is doing something which scorns, or belittles a disadvantaged racial group. By contrast an act which does the same for a dominant powerful racial group is not racist because it has no effect. The dominant group don't care. So, by this statement, because the dolls were black in colour they are portraying a disadvantaged racial group and therefore it is racism and wrong. And if they(the dolls) were white, then who cares because white is the dominant racial group and that makes it ok. Thats a racist statement in itself by suggesting anyone with dark skin is disadvantaged and anyone with white skin is dominant and therefore better advantaged and somehow superior. Additionally, based on that statement, it should be fine to sell black coloured golliwogs in Ghana (for example) but not white ones as dark skinned people are the majority and dominant group. Sorry, I think that statement is not right. I would think this statement would be quite offensive in itself to a person who has other-than-white skin. Saying Maoris for example are a disadvantaged racial group in my opinion is just so wrong, they have the same advantages, same access to education etc etc. Infact there is no denying there are some very successful Maori people throughout society. Musicians, polititions, business CEO's etc,etc. How some choose to live their life and what they do with the opportunities they are presented is their choice, they may end up disadvantaged but it is the road they took, they were not forced into the situation they put themselves in (although they may be forced to live with that situation as a result). But saying they are overall disadvantaged because of their race is wrong IMO. An interesting debate :thumbs:	Iantech (16386)
1226507	2011-08-29 04:08:00	Isn't calling a disadvantaged racial group a disadvantaged racial group racist in itself? No, because it doesn't scorn or belittle them . As others have pointed out in other threads, facts in and of themselves aren't racist . They only become racially charged when consistently used to belittle or scorn the group involved . In any case, the only problem I can see with them is that they are traditionally associated with racism . And you don't see that as a problem, I gather . Can you see that perhaps the group represented by such dolls might view it slightly differently, and that we should consider respecting their views? But I doubt the shop selling them was doing so in an intentionally racist way . Almost certainly it was inintentional . Many people are unaware of the history . But after having had it pointed out, I would hope most shop-owners would see the advantage in not offending potential clientele . And as Iantech already pointed out, wouldn't a child prefer a doll the same colour as themselves? Of course, and these are commonly available; they do not have the same connotations as golliwogs do . Then again, maybe they'd be just as happy with one of any colour, because before a certain age nobody has actually learned to be racist yet . . . . :groan: Studies suggest that racist attitudes are learned very early, around 18months-2years . but that doesn't address the fact that for some people, these dolls have a very strong connotation .	Zara Baxter (16260)
1226508	2011-08-29 10:18:00	Thankyou Zara. :clap The issue is specific to the golliwog doll because that particular image has derogative racial connections. This is not an argument for banning "black" dolls per se. This is old news guys. Public libraries removed the Noddy books in the 1960s because golliwogs were portrayed as the baddies. Just as the Biggles books were also removed because of the use of non-whites as the baddies. Personally I mourned this because I'd just discovered Biggles. :ban	Winston001 (3612)
1226509	2011-08-29 11:55:00	Thankyou Zara . :clap The issue is specific to the golliwog doll because that particular image has derogative racial connections . This is not an argument for banning "black" dolls per se . I know what you are saying, but, no, you're wrong . If that was the case, then they would have asked for the white golliwog ones to be removed as well, but they didnt, they have only been asked to remove the black coloured ones . If the airport authority had asked for all of them to be removed, then fine, but the shop has only been prevented from selling the black ones . So, my question is: If a golliwog doll is racist or has derogative racial connections as you state, they arent they all removed and not just one particular colour? It seems to me there is seperate rules for each colour doll . White = Ok, we'll turn a blind eye . Brown = Soso - but we will wait until someone complains . Black = No, cant sell - and we will humiliate you on the media if you do . Hmmm, sounds pretty much like society really dont it, seperate rules based on colour . . . . Enuf said .	Iantech (16386)
1226510	2011-08-29 20:49:00	I agree with you Ian. :thumbs: This is nothing other than more PC nonsense. If there hadn’t been a Black Golliwog in the mix of other colours, the PC brigade would be protesting it had been left out. Anyway, I’ve still got my Black Golliwog, and I’ve slept with my Black Golliwog, and I’m sure if there had been any thwart connotations pertaining to Black Golliwogs my mother wouldn’t have allowed it. And, for what it’s worth, my Black Golliwog is presently cohabitating in a suitcase with my blue Rupert Bear. I shudder to think what the PC Brigade will make of this. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1226511	2011-08-29 21:58:00	It appears that in 1895 the original golliwogs were known to be brave and lovable. Between the 1940s and 1960s the golliwogs were turned into villains. The character the dolls are based on started out in 1895 as brave and lovable in children's books by Florence Kate Upton, before soft-toy versions were made. They also featured in the Noddy books of Enid Blyton. But by the 1940s the toys began to be associated with the racial insult "wog" and by the 1960s books - many showing golliwogs as villains - were being withdrawn from libraries because they were seen as racially insensitive. www.nzherald.co.nz	Bobh (5192)
1 2 3 4