binary_star

In my opinion both. It's a caricature (of a blackface minstrel) of a caricature (of plantation slave stereotypes). Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dully wrote: > > Do I think it is offensive to have a toy that > depicts a black person as pet and play thing > specifically within the setting of a slave? > > Binary wrote: > > It's a doll of a white man in "blackface" > > > So which one is it? Edited for clarity.

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > binary_star Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > binary_star Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > I'm still not sure what the Dagenham reference > was > > all about, are > > > they known for their racism or something?) > > > > > Weeping Jesus..... > > Here you go: bbc news You needn't have bothered (see my previous post), but thanks all the same - I'll be sure to remember you for having a finger on the pulse of the BNP's gains ;)

You're right MP Golliwogs can't be racist, but as racist caricatures, I think it's right that the stallholder was challenged. I really think an adult in 2011 should be more aware, but if we give her the benefit of the doubt, naivety as an excuse can only be used the once. As for imperial Romans or Barbary pirates, or any other enslavers we can think about, where's the reasoning behind bringing attention to these other slave trades when talking about selling Golliwogs? The minstrel caricature (which the doll is based on) perpetuated only one racial stereotype - the black plantation slaves during the era of minstrel shows. It's a doll of a white man in "blackface", I don't understand why people would defend it - because other slave trades we worse?? I am now pondering why it's been so easy for me to "move on" from those ancestral white/imperial Rome/current European slave caricatures? I suppose, people aren't selling dolls at my local fair that are based on taking the piss out of it for a start, are they??? Or are they? (The Gollihonk or whatever it was doesn't count, that's clearly based on the Golliwog). Current slavery, in my opinion, is a separate issue (as was white guilt, to be fair).

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I'm still not sure what the Dagenham reference was all about, are > they known for their racism or something?) I'll save you the trouble Willard

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > binary_star Wrote: > > Golliwogs are inherently racist. > > Yes we know that, stop preaching to the choir. > This is the East Dulwich Forum, not the East > Dagenham Forum. If that were true, "we" wouldn't have generated such a long thread would we? Quite a few people on here don't accept that Golliwogs are racist, KidKruger for one - after I posted "everyone knows it's racist", their response was "clearly not". If "we" all know it's racist, all the comments would have been along the lines of "Oh goodness, why are we allowing dolls of racist caricatures to be sold at the East Dulwich Fair? I mean, this isn't the East Dagenham Fair after all!" (I'm still not sure what the Dagenham reference was all about, are they known for their racism or something?) Yours, Holmes.

I didn't read the link Willard, I just Googled it for you, which you could have done yourself. I'm familiar with white guilt as a concept, but can't say I subscribe to it myself either - it was in response to Tobester999's post to "get over it". Actually re-reading the post I clearly misread it the first time around. I thought he/she was "over" the slave trade but it appears he/she wase talking about the Roman invasion. I don't think the two are comparable, but that's another argument which has no bearing on the fact that Golliwogs are inherently racist. If they were created as a harmless (or not so) children's illustration, over time, for whatver reason the racial stereotype has been clearly causing offense. In fact the Golliwog in Upton's story was based on a racist caricature itself - the minstrel, so even if there was no malicious intent, the racial stereotyping there was always....err racist. If people are offended by that I'm not going to tell them to "get over" it. Oh and shaggy if you go to http://lmgtfy.com/ and type in the search term you're after, it will give you a link that will "Google That For You".

Read a bit about the Gollywog's origins and changing symbolism here, here or if it's more palatable for you, in the Daily Mail. Now if you still think people have no right to take offence you don't have ignorance to defend you any more.

Tobester999 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is a white doll just a toy, but a black one a > pet? A black doll is not a pet. There are plenty of black dolls on the market that don't play up to racial stereotypes. But carry on telling people what they're allowed to be offended by...

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > White guilt? What's that? Is it different to other > types and colours of guilt? White guilt

I think some people just like offending... I am so appalled by your comments Tobester, I've no idea how to respond, except to register my disgust. You're officially over your white guilt??? F*ck yeh, go Tobester999!!! Whoop!! ETA: The above "white guilt" comment was in response to Tobester's post which I read as him being "officially over" the slave trade. Upon reflection, a misread which caused an irrelevant and annoying distraction.

KK I read the thread thank you. In fact I've been following it closely. It makes no difference however - I don't need to read a fucking thread to tell me selling gollywogs is racist. I know it is. And c'mon so does everyone, deep down. Anyone believing otherwise, see above post, you are ignorant.

Everyone knows it's racist.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Frankito ,do you think it would be ok then, if you > had an elderly relative,who maybe went through the > war,or the austere fifties, then was told they > would have a tenancy for life are widowed,then > they are turfed from their home I think I'm right in saying it will NOT apply to existing tenants? So you're little old lady will still be rattling around even if she had a 4 bed with a tenancy for life. If that were the case, btw I WOULD turf her out, no question.

james84 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Congratulations to the "NO" for AV camp, looks > like it will be a crushing victory..... with the > MAJORITY of support. I don't mind so much, "No" was my second preference.

I really sypathise with you MrLoxley, we had the same problem when we lived in Streatham. Extremely loud parties that would always involve a professional sound system, an MC, doormen, even promotional flyers. People would spill out onto the street afterwards and the music was so loud it was like being in a club. Also for a woman very intimidating and even if I was a guy they were not the kind of people to 'respect' me for going round to have a word. The police weren't interested unless I'd seen a gun, knife, drugs or serious violence. The environmental health were going to come round our house to make a report (we lived next door!) The first time we thought it was a one off but when it happened again, I tracked down the organisers from the numbers on one of the flyers - turns out an estate agent had been using empty properties to hold club night after parties in!! By the time neighbours complained he'd move on to the next one. Slick operation I'll give them that. Anyway, I can't really offer you any advice, but good luck!

I posted this on another thread, but it's even more appropriate here so it's going up again (peronal favourites are the supermarket aisle and escalator): As an aside, it's clear to me that the EDF has it's very own version of Godwin's law: As a discussion about cyclists grows longer, the probability of mentioning red light jumping, lycra wearing or pavement cycling approaches 1 Not sure what to call this law, but I've yet to find a thread about cycling on here that doesn't obey it!

Sorry I got this thread confused with the one started here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,647909,647909#msg-647909 both of which have contributions from SarahO hence my comment about being an 18yr old girl. Like zeban, I too agree with WickedStepmother's comments above.

uplandsneighbour Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why does being 18 call for special pleading, > binary star? It doesn't and I don't recall saying it did.

Hmm I actually might try that Loz. Atm I sleep with a rugby gum shield in most nights!

Seems to be a lot of "Well I'm alright Jack!" type posts on this thread. Curious to know how many of those are from 18 yr old girls!!

The power of the bike bell:

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bad guess. 29 pedestrians were killed in Britain > in accidents involving cyclists between 1998 and > 2007. That's only 7600 pedestrians less than were killed by mototor vehicles during the same period.

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- What recourse is there against cyclist who disregard the highway code? Nothing unless the rule states it MUST be adhered to - such rules always reference the piece of legislation that makes them law. All the other rules are bascically guidelines, so rules for cyclists that must be obeyed by LAW: northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- - randomly swerving in and of traffic: It's perfectly legal to filter, however, Rule 68: You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner [Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991] - charging through red lights: Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)] and rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)] - hopping onto the pavement: Rule 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. [Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129] - positioning themselves along vehicles' blind side: Guideline only: rule 72 Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. So complain to the Police...I regularly see people in the City get ticketed for cycling on the pavement and jumping reds, and I have friends who have received on the spot fines of ?30 for doing so.

Emerson Crane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycle where you bloody like as long as its not on > the pavement!! I do, thanks :D

Look, if you really want to get cyclists ticketed locally for jumping lights or pavement cycling then complain to the Police about it. In the Square Mile they're always running sting operations to catch out rogue cyclists because those are the crimes that are flagged up the most.