Jump to content

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

dully

By dully
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Willard

Willard

Posted
Posted

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

binary_star

binary_star

Posted
Posted

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

binary_star

Posted
Posted

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 ;)

Willard

Willard

Posted
Posted

binary_star Wrote:


> 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 ;)



......no not really, just a better grasp of history than you. The article relates to 2006.

mockney piers

mockney piers

Posted
Posted

I didn't bring any of it up, I was merely pointing out inaccuracies in previous posts.

In fact I offered no judgements at all.


Maybe once is enough, but I'm sure she won't do it again judging by the reported reaction. So we're really not dealing with some lynchian undercurrent here, but an honest mistake which has been corrected. Bravo OP.


Meaning move on. As in this topic. No wider judgement about who should or shouldn't move on, just the rather enclosed loop this thread had become. I was attempting, light-heartedly to cut the gordian knot.


I do believe however that modern human trafficking, drug trafficking and indentured labour (most of which produces goods for the west's high streets/back streets) is genuinely the most important concern, but rightly perhaps for another thread.

binary_star

binary_star

Posted
Posted

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.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

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


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Actually, that link is relating to very old news.


At the last local election the BNP were thrashed in Barking and Dagenham.


I was one of the people leafleting crucial areas as part of the Hope not Hate campaign, which was totally successful in its aims of persuading residents not to vote BNP.


So I don't think the Dagenham reference is valid any more.

binary_star

binary_star

Posted
Posted

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I don't accept that golliwogs are manufactured for

> racist reasons, purchased for racist reasons and

> played with adored by children for racist reasons.


Me neither. My nursery had one that I liked to play with as a child. Racist child? Don't think so. Child playing with racist caricature? Yes. I also used to go to the "paki" shop and the "chinky", but at some point, somebody - a friend, teacher, relative, I don't recall - enlightened me to the fact that these were offensive racial slurs, so I stopped using them. Some people would carry on, giving the excuse "it's just an abbreviation of Pakistani, much like Scot is of Scottish", or "it's just a harmless children's doll". Bit they must know really that's utter bullsh!t.


KidKruger Wrote:

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

Same goes for white

> caricatured dolls/toys sold in countries populated

> by black societies, I would not regard those

> either as cocking a snoot to the days when

> Europeans were stolen from their countries and

> forced to slavery and death as a result of it.

>


Maybe if the were caricatures of European slaves you might, no?

binary_star

binary_star

Posted
Posted

Glad to hear it Sue!


There you go Willard, baby Jesus can stop crying now, I've got an even better grasp on local politics as it relates to the BNP history now.




Sue Wrote:

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

> Actually, that link is relating to very old news.

>

> At the last local election the BNP were thrashed

> in Barking and Dagenham.

>

> I was one of the people leafleting crucial areas

> as part of the Hope not Hate campaign, which was

> totally successful in its aims of persuading

> residents not to vote BNP.

>

> So I don't think the Dagenham reference is valid

> any more.

Ridgley

Ridgley

Posted
Posted
I am not sure if the doll is racist itself, it is what the doll symbolised to people of colour some find the doll offensive some don?t you can also argue the point that the Union Jack and the Swastika is also offensive to some ethnic groups as well. My mother group up playing with a very pale white Victorian porcelain doll maybe some might find that offensive too.
Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

Oh OK, sorry if I missed your point.


I know that the swastika originally represented something completely different before it was appropriated by the Nazis, and I have seen swastikas painted on walls in India which have nothing to do with Nazism, for example alongside pictures of Ganesh.


But I'm not sure that a Golliwog is quite the same thing.


Anyway, as you were, because I'm not quite sure what your point is so I'm clearly having one of my many brain-dead moments.

Ridgley

Ridgley

Posted
Posted

To some people it is, like I said in my last thread some peole find it offensive some don?t I am just looking at both side of the argument please below the Origins of the Golliwog it has mixed points of view as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg

Ridgley

Ridgley

Posted
Posted

As a child I wanted a black doll something that related to me, after given my mum earache she took me to the toy shop to buy one there were not many black dolls growing up in the 70s there were a few Golliywogs still around. But I did not like them from a point of view as a child when you buy a doll you want to comb there hair and dress them up I could not do this with Golii doll as it was a rag doll that is the way I saw it.


My white childhood friends new it was a black doll but they were intelligent to know that black people do not look like that so in the end mum asked a relative to bring one back from the Caribbean this doll I loved it had an afro hair funky 70s clothes had this doll for many years.

katie1997

katie1997

Posted
Posted

Sue Wrote:

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

> I know that the swastika originally represented

> something completely different before it was

> appropriated by the Nazis, and I have seen

> swastikas painted on walls in India which have

> nothing to do with Nazism, for example alongside

> pictures of Ganesh.


Must say I didn't notice the difference when I first noticed them in India though the ones over there can face either way and aren't at an angle.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

Ridgley Wrote:

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

> As a child I wanted a black doll something that

> related to me, after given my mum earache she took

> me to the toy shop to buy one there were not many

> black dolls growing up in the 70s there were a few

> Golliywogs still around. But I did not like them

> from a point of view as a child when you buy a

> doll you want to comb there hair and dress them up

> I could not do this with Golii doll as it was a

> rag doll that is the way I saw it.


xxxxx


My sister in the fifties had a black walkie-talkie doll, which my parents bought from a toyshop in Streatham. I still find it quite strange that she did as there were not many black people in London at that time, plus going by some comments they made my parents (white) were quite racist :-$


ETA: Actually I think it just walked, not talked. It might have cried when you tipped it up :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      How late is your Christmas Card

      By malumbu · Posted

      Post much better this Xmas.  Sue posted about whether they send Xmas cards; how good the post arrives is relevant.  Think I will continue to stay off Instagram!
    • Spartacus
      How late is your Christmas Card

      By Spartacus · Posted

      These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • malumbu
      How late is your Christmas Card

      By malumbu · Posted

      Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • alice
      Just found these matches!

      By alice · Posted

      Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...