|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 6, 2009 16:55:01 GMT
Absolute rubbish. It was an innocent toy doll for decades. Loved by white children all over the world, many of whom took it to bed with them and felt safe cuddling it at night time.
The phrase 'wog' was taken on by the National Front and the racist skinheads in the sixties and seventies, and that was obviously a derivation from golliwog. Prove to me that there were complaints about golliwogs in the 1920s or 1930s (even thats about 50 years after they were first distributed), and I may look at it again.
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 6, 2009 16:57:04 GMT
And because it was adopted by NF skinheads, it's become unacceptable. If you wanted your gollywog that badly you really should have been out confronting them and giving them a good kicking back when they were adopting your favourite cuddly toy.
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 6, 2009 16:59:38 GMT
" It was an innocent toy doll for decades."
As the BNP spokesman earlier pointed out. As I said, does the fact that you are lining up with them on this issue not give you pause for thought, even just a bit?
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 6, 2009 17:02:42 GMT
Hmm, seems a difference of opinion here between the 'other side'. Omni claims the golliwog was always a symbol of racism, and now Andy states that the far right hijacked it, so now no one can have the dolls. Seems like a crack in the defensive wall there, boys. If your belief is that the golly is out of bounds because the NF hijacked it, then you're allowing the far right to dictate your vocabulary and your actions. Sorry, you may want to run up the white flag to those scumbags, but I never will.
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 6, 2009 17:05:07 GMT
As the BNP spokesman earlier pointed out
Blimey, I had no idea that one of the contributors here was Nick Griffin. Which one is he?
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 6, 2009 17:07:11 GMT
Nick Prince, the leader of the local BNP, defended the decision to sell the dolls. He said they also sold Golly fridge magnets and a range of patriotic toys such as teddy bears with England flag t-shirts on.
He said: "Golliwogs are traditional toys which pre-date teddy bears by five years.
Good company you're keeping, Meldrew.
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 6, 2009 17:07:45 GMT
It became a term of abuse as soon as the Windruish generation arrived.
Anyway, why would you want to use a word that is widely considered to be racist?
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 6, 2009 17:08:59 GMT
Plus I do think the anti-PC brigade is a little disingenuous for refusing to admit that some amongst them actually claim to be 'anti-PCism' as a cover for their racism.I would agree that the key word there Vania is "some". There are many of the PC people who would have you believe that all people who take an anti PC stance are in fact racists. I'm sure you can tell from my posts that I have no time for this PC garbage. I try not to offend people as a matter of course, and am no way racist, but I don't need a group of people telling me what is or isn't acceptable. I have the intelligence to figure out what may offend people and avoid saying it. On a discussion on Radio 5 the other day, a black woman phoned in to Jeremy Vine to say that she was sick and tired of people treading on eggshells around her, and white people instructing the population on what will offend her. She claimed that that in itself made her feel different within society, and I reckon there must be many more who feel the same. To the point where, as I said, the BNP aren't racist any more - they are just "anti-PC". Hmm, I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't believe that the BNP are a racist organisation. Have you really met such people, Omni? Can you please give me their contact details as I have an eight year old car, and I'm sure I can flog it to one of them for at least £15,000. What 'eggshells' pray tell? I mean seriously 'eggshells' is used to refer to everything from 'blackboards' to 'p*ki'. If an Asian person would prefer me not to refer to them as a paki, how exactly is that evidence of having to tread on eggshells?
|
|
sushimo
New Member
One tequilla, Two Tequilla, Three Tequilla - Floor.
Posts: 243
|
Post by sushimo on Feb 6, 2009 17:09:47 GMT
So, the BNP and racists are once again going to win out because we let them. As VM says, I wonder what will be next, because sure as hell there will be a 'next'.
|
|
|
Post by Beachcomber on Feb 6, 2009 17:10:36 GMT
After 10 pages of the same old argument going back and forth - Is there anything new to add ? ...........
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 6, 2009 17:11:07 GMT
"the BNP and racists are once again going to win out because we let them."
They will only win if supposedly sensible people keep defending their right to flog racist stuff and use racist language, like you are doing.
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 6, 2009 17:13:50 GMT
Just a query to people who keep saying 'it was an innocent doll in the 20s'. Was it? or was it just the case that at that time period, racist caricatures were more acceptable and widespread that they are now?
I mean the Merchant of Venice/the character of shylock are pretty anti-semetic, even though in those time periods no issue would have been taken with it as anti-Jewish attitudes were seen as the norm.
|
|
sushimo
New Member
One tequilla, Two Tequilla, Three Tequilla - Floor.
Posts: 243
|
Post by sushimo on Feb 6, 2009 17:16:05 GMT
I don't defend them in any way, shape or form, never have done Omni, and that is not correct to even indicate that I am.
I do, however, defend my right to have a golly, give them as gifts and call them such without being accused of being racist.
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 6, 2009 17:17:43 GMT
So you should be free to buy racist caricatures because you are "not racist", but the BNP shouldn't because they "are racist", Sushi? How does that work then?
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 6, 2009 17:20:07 GMT
I mean, do you honestly not see how the "it's just an innocent wickle toy!" guff mirrors the BNP line almost word for word? And do you not see how this lends credibility to the likes of the BNP?
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,080
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 6, 2009 17:21:43 GMT
|
|
sushimo
New Member
One tequilla, Two Tequilla, Three Tequilla - Floor.
Posts: 243
|
Post by sushimo on Feb 6, 2009 17:23:02 GMT
Oh, nice try Omni, but you know that is way out of order and doesn't even deserve a reply tbh. The ones in my family were bought long before the BNP tagged onto them - hell, I am even starting to excuse myself to you - nah, not worth it, you're just a wind up merchant!
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 6, 2009 17:27:53 GMT
It was a serious question, Sushi. Do you not think that the more widespread the justifying arguments used by the BNP become, the more credibility their argument gains?
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 6, 2009 17:28:51 GMT
Oh I think I should just clarify. I actually don't think golliwogs should be barred. If people want to own dolls which are essentiall racial caricatures (per the wiki link Sushi posted it even talks about their origins as ;'minstrel dolls') then that is up to them.
And IF and I mean IF the Guardian link is true then I still cannot understand the viewpoint of her defenders. I mean have you seen the tennis player? He's bi-racial, which I guess is some people's eyes makes him black, which means he automatically looks like a Golliwog. No wild hair, or blue coat, or wide smile or wide eyes.
Nowt.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,080
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 6, 2009 17:30:43 GMT
I mean have you seen the tennis player? He's bi-racial, I think you mean dual-heritaged.
|
|