|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 6, 2009 18:19:44 GMT
And that would be true even if the term "Yid" derived from yidboy dolls because the big nosed yid-boy doll existed before anyone had seen a hook-nosed usurious jewboy.
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Feb 6, 2009 18:25:25 GMT
Yeah, I'm with Vania on this, too.
These things shouldn't be banned. But it should be pointed out to anyone buying them that they have spectacularly strong racist associations and by buying the, they're probably reinforcing the stereotypes and charicatures, and allowing the racist language to stay in tthe vocabulary, and are probably doing in either in ignorance or as juvenile shock-merchants.
Are you ever so slightly mad, or are you having a laugh?
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 6, 2009 18:34:22 GMT
Omnipresent types like someone who hasn't totally blown his credibility by supporting Gordon Brown for all this time.
Now anybody who doesn't believe that Satan created the golliwog and that the Cross Of St George is a secret recognition symbol for the Great Right Wing Racist Homophobe Conspiracy is a member of the BNP. Give him some more time and he'll find some approved figures from the Office of Madeup Statistics to prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 6, 2009 20:04:35 GMT
If I had a 'yidboy' doll and referred to each and every Jewish person I knew as 'the kike' I would expect people to probably think I was a bit anti-semetic. As well as rude. That would be true for any expression. If I addressed every Frenchman I met with frenchie. Or every American as Yank. The point is intent. Addressing people in this way demonstrates offensive intent. We have allowed this preciousness to go too far. Offensiveness is socially unacceptable. But words in context are just words. |
|
sweet soul
New Member
Keep The Faith !
Posts: 5,106 
|
Post by sweet soul on Feb 6, 2009 20:06:22 GMT
Just cos you look like a golliwog omni, do you have to make such a fuss!  |
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 6, 2009 20:18:36 GMT
Tarrant my dear. How do you use racially offensive language 'in context'?
Eh? If I call someone an ugly pregnant dog in 'context' then I'm not being offensive? You'll have to explain that one to me.
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 6, 2009 20:27:54 GMT
Oh for gawds sake you silly pregnant looking dog -if you call someone on the street an ugly pregnant dog you're deliberately being offenisve.If you call a black on the street a golliwog you're also being deliberately offensive .No one is saying any different .Or are you just pretending to be thick ?
|
|
Muz
New Member
Posts: 12,255
|
Post by Muz on Feb 6, 2009 20:33:10 GMT
Those coloureds really have no sense of humour, have they?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 6, 2009 20:53:56 GMT
Tarrant my dear. How do you use racially offensive language 'in context'? Eh? If I call someone an ugly pregnant dog in 'context' then I'm not being offensive? You'll have to explain that one to me. Language used in context isn't offensive, racially or otherwise. Some people choose to take offense. The precious society. |
|
ruby
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by ruby on Feb 6, 2009 20:54:56 GMT
like what as been said before, golliwogs were soft toys without any connotation to the child. i don't understand the fuss, it's a bit like saying some white guy looks like a konk! would there be such a hoo ha then?
|
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Feb 6, 2009 20:57:51 GMT
I have a golliwog. I've had it for many years, long before anyone thought of it as an offensive symbol... FFS I do wish people would stop being so precious.
It's a doll with fuzzy hair that's been loved by generations of children who've grown up to be no more racist than anyone who didn't have one. It had no connotation of racism. It was just a different coloured doll that was an easily cuddled shape.
What next. Will they be saying ban lala of the Teletubbies because it might offend the chinese or the red one because it might offend Native Americans?
|
|
ruby
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by ruby on Feb 6, 2009 21:05:32 GMT
Exactly Puffin! I can't get my head round what all the fuss is about! It was just a toy, at the time! There was certainly many other toys after this time but nobody took offence! I rather think that the liberals are making the so called offended squirm with embarrassment!
|
|
ruby
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by ruby on Feb 6, 2009 21:14:44 GMT
if someone called me on the street i would be offfended either way! why are they calling me in the street and for what?
|
|
Muz
New Member
Posts: 12,255
|
Post by Muz on Feb 6, 2009 22:05:59 GMT
Children aren't naturally racist. These are children's toys. No child would look at a smiling black face and think that their gollywog was a negative reflection on black people. Only the bedwetters will do that. It seems to me that the racist label is bandied about too easily these days. A shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 6, 2009 22:11:10 GMT
Puffin, you're probably old enough that that's true. By the time I was of gollywog age, though, it was clearly a term of racist abuse, and gollywogs had been turned into charicatures of black people (very "black and white minstrels"). And people knew not to use it in language and not to give kids gollywogs.
Not because the golliwogs turned anyone racist, but because of what they represented. And because they knew perfectly well that black people had widely been taunted with the name gollywog.
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 6, 2009 22:26:44 GMT
heehee
and round and round and round it goes.
You talk as though us older ones are too senile to have noticed anything .It's not that though you know ,Andy .I dont quite think you're ever going to see what exactly it is though mind .
I must admit I giggled over "gollywog age ".You do realise someone could take offence over that and think you were being racist
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Feb 6, 2009 23:07:53 GMT
By the time I was of gollywog age, though, it was clearly a term of racist abuse, and gollywogs had been turned into charicatures of black people (very "black and white minstrels"). And people knew not to use it in language and not to give kids gollywogs
Are you for real?
I kid you not, I think a lot of members here are totally nuts, or they are taking the piss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 6, 2009 23:16:51 GMT
Well said feral! I am also of the gollywog age! I was given a golly when i was a little girl and loved him madly. I never for one minute thought of him as black, he was just golly. No-one ever spoke of any racial connotations in those days, people weren't so touchy and obsessed with taking offence like they are today. I still maintain it's a toy and harmless. What is offensive however is calling someone a gollywog which is an entirely different issue altogether. I can't stand racism, nor would i dream of ever offending anyone because of their colour or culture. I also had a black doll called Topsy that i have mentioned on another thread. I never thought of her as black either, she was just a doll and was no different to me than my white dolls.
I think the discussion has blown up out of all proportion to be honest with you. A toy is a toy at the end of the day and harmless. A word or expression that is deemed rascist is offensive when used flippantly to someone you generally don't know and who takes it out of context. It's simple really. Hope i've explained that clear enough, it's just my personal view. Sorry if it offends anyone!
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Feb 6, 2009 23:20:13 GMT
It's simple really. Hope i've explained that clear enough, it's just my personal view. Sorry if it offends anyone! No need to apologise for talking sense. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 6, 2009 23:21:39 GMT
Thanks Scooby! It's just how i feel. I don't expect anyone necessarily to agree with me lol! Thanks, i appreciate it! ;D
|
|
