Golliwog - Toy or Racist Brand?

[Donkey]

Okay, in this thread I won't be using the term 'golliwog' as a racist term. As they were originally toys. Yes,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/AreYouReallySellingThat.jpg

Then they were considered racist. There were books and everything all banned.

Read up on this if you don't already know about it. Do you think they were really racist and should they have been banned?

[Triceratops]

Referring to a Golliwog as racist to black people is pretty much equal to accusing Noddy as racist to white people IMO.

I used to have a toy golliwog when I was younger. Oh, and a keyring and framed painting. These were all passed down to me by relatives, I used to think he was cute.

I really do think the fact that Golliwog was banned for "racial" reasons is ludicrous. Just like the time when people considered Andy Pandy as apparently too "pornographic" when he jumps in to bed with Looby Loo at the end of each show. It's beyond me why people make such ridiculous claims towards children's toys, books and programmes as such. Focusing on petty matters like this instead of paying attention to the bigger issues children happen to be exposed to today causes more problems.

Besides, I would be surprised if a young child actually identified a golliwog as racist or Andy Pandy as racy for themselves, without others telling them these are of offensive material.

[The Batman]

I can see why it can be percieved as racism but really it's just people that take things to far. It's straight up stupid how things like this happen.

[Camazotz]

It's not the company's fault that "golliwog" became a racial slur after the toy was made. It's in no way racist.

[Perseus]

Wow, that's as stupid as when people called "Resident Evil 5" racist because you kill "black" zombies. People are overly sensative when it comes to race. My philsophy is, "If race isn't a big deal, why make it a big deal?"

[Sage]

My first thought when seeing those things is "Ima chargin' mah laser"

[tripolar]

Thats bull, its not racist its a toy but now a days everything can be racist. Just like with coon. coon can be a short way to say raccoon but coon is now racist.

[Cromm]

No, actually they weren't orginally toys.

I did a little Googling and found this:


The Golliwog began life as a story book character created by Florence Kate Upton. Upton was born in 1873 in Flushing, New York, to English parents who had emigrated to the United States in 1870. She was the second of four children. When Upton was fourteen, her father died and, shortly thereafter, the family returned to England. For several years she honed her skills as an artist. Unable to afford art school, Upton illustrated her own children's book in the hope of raising tuition money.

In 1895, her book, entitled The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls, was published in London. Upton drew the illustrations, and her mother, Bertha Upton, wrote the accompanying verse. The book's main characters were two Dutch dolls, Peg and Sarah Jane, and the Golliwogg. The story begins with Peg and Sara Jane, on the loose in a toy shop, encountering "a horrid sight, the blackest gnome." The little black "gnome" wore bright red trousers, a red bow tie on a high collared white shirt, and a blue swallow-tailed coat. He was a caricature of American black faced minstrels -- in effect, the caricature of a caricature. She named him Golliwogg.

So... how is that -not- racist again?

[mrmcdonaldduck]

the toy it self isnt racist. some idiot says"uh its black so it has to be racist" then the name golliwog becomes racist.

[Donkey]

No, actually they weren't orginally toys.

I did a little Googling and found this:



So... how is that -not- racist again?

Read my post, "Then they were considered racist. There were books and everything all banned."

To be honest, I think it is more racist to perceive this as being racist. It obviously shows that you don't see people equally.

[nick]

I'm sure there was a time when lots of people bought the toys or the jam without it even crossing their mind that there was anything racist about it. However, I can perfectly well understand that many people would be offended by those dolls today, with good reason I would say. If they are offensive to people then surely its better to consign them to the past.

[Cromm]

To be honest, I think it is more racist to perceive this as being racist. It obviously shows that you don't see people equally. Well obviously. :rollseyes: Mind explaining that rationale? Or do you prefer ad hominum tu quoque to valid debate?

How does perciving a character that was designed to emulate "the dandified coon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface#cite_note-0)" as racist, mean I don't percive people as equal.

It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

~CC

[Donkey]

Well obviously. :rollseyes: Mind explaining that rationale? Or do you prefer ad hominum tu quoque to valid debate?

How does perciving a character that was designed to emulate "the dandified coon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface#cite_note-0)" as racist, mean I don't percive people as equal.

It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

~CC
If the toy what white and wore red make up would you think of it as racist even if there was something else like the dandified coon that could look similar to it? No.

No one would.

They see it as racist because they think that people are more likely to be discriminative against blacks. They think just because the toy is black it represents something racist.

That shows the person saying the toy is racist doesn't see blacks the same as whites therefore doesn't see people equally.

[MisterMonster]

if the toy was created with black people in mind and based on black people, then it#s racist.
If it's based on a creature in her mindd or something, then it's not.
It certanly does look racist, but oh well.

[Giles]

At the minute, I think golliwogs are recognised (almosy) only for the racist connections.

[Cromm]

If the toy what white and wore red make up would you think of it as racist even if there was something else like the dandified coon that could look similar to it? No.

No one would.

They see it as racist because they think that people are more likely to be discriminative against blacks. They think just because the toy is black it represents something racist.

That shows the person saying the toy is racist doesn't see blacks the same as whites therefore doesn't see people equally.

oooooooooookay. Let's count the logic errors in this post later, and deal with it point by point. I'll start with the last, and work my way back.

"That shows the person saying the toy is racist doesn't see blacks the same as whites therefore doesn't see people equally"

Even if it did show that (it doesn't, but I'll get to why in a minute), blacks aren't the same as whites. Nor are males the same as females or Jews the same as Christians. If they were the same, they wouldn't be differnt, would they? Very simple logic, really. I'm suprized I had to point that out.

But different doesn't mean inequal, and recognizing differences doesn't make one racist. The racist part comes when you start saying (or even implying) that those differences make one group of people inherently better than another. That's what's racist.

"They think just because the toy is black it represents something racist"

You have it backward. The toy represents a racist characature. It's not just that it's a black doll, that would be silly. Is the black Barbie racist? Of course not! But if it were sold with five kid dolls, a plastic welfare check, a toy watermelon and a bucket of fried chicken....

"They see it as racist because they think that people are more likely to be discriminative against blacks."

Again, that's not why the see it as racist, but lets get to the second part of that sentance... aren't blacks more likely to be discriminated against? Especially by white Americans of the 1920's? How is recognizing that fact racist in and of itself?

"If the toy were white..." yatta yatta. No, if it were just a white doll it wouldn't be racist. Nor would it be racist if it were simply a black doll; but it is't just. It's what the doll is meant to represent.

For example, if there was a white doll produced by black people of the time, who wore a southern 'gentleman' outfit, held a small whip and was named "Cracker Joe", that would be racist. Or alternatively, if there were a red doll, that alone wouldn't be racist; but give it a feathered head dress, a long pipe, and name it "big cheif"... that'd be kinda racist too.

Do you see the pattern here?

Racisim as represented by things (be they a doll, or a certain food, or even a word like 'nigger') is never about that thing being racist. Things can't be racist, but the meaning that people attach to them can be, and there's a boat load of 'em attached to 'the golliwog'.


~ CC

[scuba steve]

they look like dolls of the minstrol show which was a show in the 60's of white people putting brown face paint on their faces and taking the piss of black people. But as long as the books and all that jazz contain similar content then i would see no reason why they'd be racist.............they're just dolls. Oh no it's action man and the plastic doll has white skin RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!