Whilst shopping at the dulwich fair on goose green today... (Lounged)

[LadyDeliah]

They were seen as pets. Docile, subjegated versions of the more scary field slave. How is that not offensive?

And in regards your italicisation of my mass murder etc comments above, are you trying to infer that these things were not part of tge international slave trade that shames our collective European history?

[*Bob*]

I can see I was a little over-zealous, for which I'm sorry, but not without qualification.

Ethnicity of a particular poster should not be a factor: however, if you use insist not only on using it as a means to accredit your posts, but also adjust it when it suits - according to whatever point you want to make - then you make it a factor. You might not (arguably) be 'wrong', but that doesn't make it feel 'right'. It feels underhand.

If anyone seriously believes that people 'around these parts' are ignorant in regards to black culture, then I can only assume that you've haven't been to many other parts. A doll at a local fair, viewed (as you can see on this thread) by most people (including me) as a distasteful embarrassment should not be manipulated into a treatise on the current state of play with regards to race relations in SE22 and its environs.

It's easy to storm the ranks the the 'whining, privileged middle classes' in East Dulwich over transgressions in political correctness, but whilst you hit your occasional deserving targets, this scattergun approach ultimately alienates the majority who have never been anywhere else but on your side. Can I suggest (Lady Delilah) that if someone says something you disagree with, that you take that person to task, rather than an entire demographic of the population? If overcoming racism is about breaking down a 'them and us' attitude.. you reinforcing it at every opportunity - when you have no call to do so - is counter-productive.

As an aside, when I went to St Lucia and stayed with a friends granny on the island, she had a collection of 'gollies', which I was astonished to see. Her children and grand-children simply rolled their eyes about them in a 'Gran' way. I guess they weren't prepared to haul her over hot coals for them, the same way I suppose we didn't give our Gran the third degree over Sunday lunch if she used the word 'coloured'. Sometimes absolute militantcy is not called for.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm bothering. This thread will degenerate, sure as eggs, into another pointlessly polarised shouty-fest, accomplishing nothing - before the day is out.

[LadyDeliah]

*Bob* I appologise for branding everyone with the same brush and for my sweeping generalisation but this issue is close to my heart and close to the heart of some of my family members who have been subjected to overt and covert racism.

I will add as an aside, though that generalisations are made on here constantly re Daily Mail readers, Guardian readers, bull breed owning chavs, yummy mummies etc but will admit that this is a lazy way to describe the beliefs of a group of people.

I am sure there must be plenty of White middle/privileged class people who are entirely inoffensive.

[Penguin68]

Most African origin slaves were initially enslaved by fellow Africans or by Arabs - who then sold them to Europeans. Europeans very rarely directly captured African slaves (i.e. people who were free) themselves. Arabs around the Med enslaved large numbers of Europeans and Slavs for service in North Africa, Palestine and Syria, Arabia and Anatolia. If slavery is a stain, and it is, it is a stain not unique to white Europeans, and most modern slavery (and there is a lot of it) has virtually nothing to do with Europeans at all. And as I have said, the original (literary) Gollywog was created 20 years after the abolition of slavery in the US. Later productisation followed (the dolls) but they never co-existed with slavery - so no comparisons would or could have been drawn between then and ?current? black slaves. A gollywog doll is no more (or I suppose no less) a 'pet' than a teddy bear or a standard doll.

Most recent (post war) genocides have been by peoples the same colour (broadly) as those they have been killing, i.e. Croatia, Rwanda, Cambodia etc.

You are right that some people back-read history to be (reasonably) offended by the symbolism of the gollywog (and that term was certainly used in an insulting or dismissive manner in the past) but you are over-egging the pudding by reading into the doll every bad thing that has happened to black people (indeed any people) ever. That wasn?t its original history or intent, neither is it the way that multitudes of people who had dolls or read the stories thought about them.

Edited for spelling

[Jeremy]

.

[LadyDeliah]

Penguin68, yes all of those things are appalling and the perpetrators of those atrocities should be vilified and shamed, but that does not detract from the horrors done in the name of our forefathers. We have no right to make light of the offence felt by the descendants of the victims of our past atrocities in the name of irony or some other excuse used for picking at old scabs, just because we are bored with feeling guilty about it don't want to look at the current advantage we have over the decendants of the victims.

[Reg Smeeton]

This thread has turned into yet another race discussion (zzzzz), nothing to do with East Dulwich gossip, can it go to the lounge where it belongs.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

I am sure there must be plenty of White middle/privileged class people who are entirely inoffensive.

Do you ever read your idiotic posts? You seem to be more bigoted than most.

Dully..........did you complain to the stallholder or just rush back to post your findings on an anonymous forum?

[peterstorm1985]

As a small child I collected the gollies off Robertson Jam, as did my then best friend at school (and many others). I still have some of them, amongst which there is a fireman golly. I see that image as a very positive depiction of a black person and (if I actually thought it was a black person rather than simply a toy) must have provided a useful image of black people to my young mind (I grew up in a predominately white area). I suppose some cynics might say that a fireman, as an emergency service provider, saving the lives of white people, still indicates some level of subjugation. One of the other badges is an astronaut golly - you surely can't say anything negative about that. By the way, my best friend at the time was black. (The only non-white child in a year group of 60 - her parents were both lawyers). I don't know what conversations went on in her household as to what gollies represented and it may of course be that they suffered her collecting the badges simply so that she could 'join in' with the other children. But I rather suspect that her parents chose to embrace the positive images available; that they were fully aware of the true origins of the toy - as explained above by Penguin68 - and saw that any racist connection was misapplied.

[dully]

I did complain to the stall holder. I saw a bag I liked, gave over my money very politely and waited for my change. As I was waiting I looked a little more at her stall and saw three golliwog dolls. I said I was not interested in the bag anymore, could I have my money back please. She asked why and I said I do not spend my money with people who sell gollywogs, why would you you sell these things? She had no come back except to give me my change and look down at the ground until I walked away. Someone else noticed my question and took a photo of the offending items. Usually I would have made more of a fuss to be honest but my young child was with me and I didn't want to cause a scene and ruin the nice experience of the fair in general.

I was quite offended by its presence and couldn't understand why someone would think that was ok. So I thought I would ask here. Just because sometimes a conversation has an ugly element to it doesn't mean you should hide and avoid it because it just gets uglier - be brave and tackle it. Doesn't require a fight just a bit of manning up. I suppose I take these things seriously because I don't think somethings need to be perpetuated.

[Alec John Moore]

I don't want to sound patronising but well done, dully, for tackling the stallholder. It's tough for most of us to challenge an action or behaviour that we find offensive as individuals and for our own reasons that are clearly shared by some but perhaps not all on this forum. I suspect that if I'd seen the doll then I would have been surprised and a bit shocked. Had my children seen it and asked about it then I would have attempted to explain that some people find that kind of figure offensive. A typical middle class ED approach I suppose but I wouldn't try to counter your offense at the doll by trotting out a history of the doll and the original intention of the producers. You are the one who feels offended and you have the right to share that view without the villification of your neighbours. It's not easy trying to engage with EDF on anything even slightly contentious.

[binary_star]

Everyone knows it's racist.

[KidKruger]

Alec John Moore, I think the only contentious thing was the inconsistency in OPs claims of origin, across various threads, causing doubt in the motive of the OP, perhaps this raised the temperature of the discussion somewhat. No-one is racist or pro-slave here, I'm sure of that. My guess is the stall-holder is not ignorant and genuinely thought no offence would be caused. The stall-holder was incorrect but that doesn't mean ED is a KKK enclave.

As someone else commented earlier, causing division by complaining about division is perpetuating the perceived issue.

Also, your sentiments do smart a bit of "You can't call the bingo hall 'Mecca'".

binary_star, clearly not, if you read the thread.

[Debi]

There seems to be some misunderstandings about the wide spectrum of racism and the forms it can take. There's the extreme, unapologetic racism of the KKK et al, and there's no suggestion that exists in this thread. But there's also the more subtle form, whereby the person doesn't even recognise their perceptions and assumptions as racist. The stall holder (and many of the posters here) falls into the latter category and, I'm sorry, but it is ignorant. She was told the golliwogs were racist and offensive, but didn't acknowledge this as valid by engaging in a dialogue. She also didn't remove them. This is not a perceived issue but a real one, so it's really important that it's debated since some people seem to lack a deeper understanding of the subtle ways in which racism operates.

[binary_star]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

Reg Smeeton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This thread has turned into yet another race

> discussion (zzzzz), nothing to do with East

> Dulwich gossip, can it go to the lounge where it

> belongs.

What do you expect when ED stall holders sell rascist symbols at a kids fair? It's not likely to go off into the benefits or otherwise of M&S now, is it?

[Damian H]

This whole thread is lamentable!

[Sue]

Why are you posting on it then?

:-S

[Reg Smeeton]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Reg Smeeton Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This thread has turned into yet another race

> > discussion (zzzzz), nothing to do with East

> > Dulwich gossip, can it go to the lounge where

> it

> > belongs.

>

>

> What do you expect when ED stall holders sell

> rascist symbols at a kids fair? It's not likely to

> go off into the benefits or otherwise of M&S now,

> is it?

And when it goes off like this it should be sent to the LOUNGE where discussions that are not specifically about East Dulwich belong. Please Admin, do your stuff as you did with Goodrich school thread.

[Sue]

Damian H Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This whole thread is lamentable!

Why are you posting on it then?

[Damian H]

To express my opinion - as I believe is the purpose of the forum.

[Tobester999]

I think some people just like being offended...

Guess what, I was never a slave trader, and you were never a slave, nor were our recent relatives - why you feel upset about something that happened an age ago smacks of having a chip on your shoulder.

Should I hate Italians because Rome invaded us nearly 2000 years ago, and turned many of our people into slaves? - no, I am officially over it, maybe you should try to move on...

[binary_star]

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.

[dully]

-- moved topic --

[LadyDeliah]

Ok here is a little experiment for anyone who still thinks that gollywog is not offensive.

Go to Peckham Rye on Saturday at about 4pm and at the top of your lungs shout the following:

1. "gollywog"

2. "gollywog"

3. "gollywog"

and see if you can get to 10 without having your head caved in.