|
U-Know! Forum » Carol Thatch |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Feb 09, 2009, 23:05
|
||
|
It's more widely known as a simple toy character...and I am very clear about the differentiation. Just because some people use it as a racist term I for one would not be afraid to use the word in reference to the toy - "Gollywog" just isn't wholly a racist word Thankfully too, it would appear the "Golly" is making a resurgence - http://www.fabtintoys.com/Golliwog/UK/?gclid=CJHckdnC0JgCFYQ-3godHAPF1Q
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Feb 09, 2009, 23:27
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Thankfully too, it would appear the "Golly" is making a resurgence - http://www.fabtintoys.com/Golliwog/UK/?gclid=CJHckdnC0JgCFYQ-3godHAPF1Q Why 'thankfully'? Have you always wanted one but could never find one anywhere? I've ranted enough as to what I think but there is a danger of tipping too far the other way for the hell of it. I do suspect in the light of all this sales of the things will escalate and E-Bay will now make a bumper profit. I really cringe at the thought of being part of *that* mentality. x
|
|||
suave harv 704 posts |
Feb 09, 2009, 23:59
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Just because some people use it as a racist term I for one would not be afraid to use the word in reference to the toy - "Gollywog" just isn't wholly a racist word I've just got home from a visit to my parents. My Mum is seventy now, and tonight she was describing the mess the front lawn was in. "It looks like a wog's house" she said. It made me smile, because there is no doubt that her utterance was racist. It described a race of people in a negative way. There's no 'interpritation' about it. If I were to say to her (as I have before) "you can't say that these days Mum" she'd just say "well I don't mean anything by it". And I *know* she wouldn't mean anything by it. My Mum, in the seventies, once applied to adopt a young black child whose Mother was in trouble. I remember her asking me if I minded a having a 'little brother' who needed our help, and having a long chat about it. I was about seven. I'm sure she used the expression 'wog's house' then, just like loads of people on building sites and factories all over the country use the term 'Jewish' to describe someone mean with money. I know my Mum, in puruing the adoption, saw a child in need rather than the colour of his skin, and if she's going to say ill-advised things now she's seventy, that are a leftover from her youth, I'm not going to 'put her right' in her own home. Heck, her Mum used to tell her to wash her hands because the bus conductor was black! What I don't like is the assumption that if someone uses a certain word they're instantly labeled a 'racist'. That's a very sinister and serious allegation. There's a lot more to being a true racist than terminology. But I know you all know that. Have you seen the 'Extras' episode where the girl get's uptight with her black date, and tries to hide her toy gollywog. He sees her and says "what's that?" and she says "it's my Golly. . toy". "Your WHAT" he says "My gollytoy". It's bloody hillarious! I'm not saying it's right to use these words, I don't use them, and it's up to us and future generations to make sure the ignorance of our parents isn't passed down, I just thought it funny my Mum said that tonight. Bless her!
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 00:04
|
||
|
Yeah, I wondered why on earth it was 'thankfully'. What a strange thing to say. x
|
|||
Stevo 6664 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 00:15
|
||
|
fuzzy-wuzzy? wog-type. sub saharan? one of those chappies my brother bumped into in the desert? bushman? bog brush? just don't have the same ring to it do it? wonder if it was what Maggie thought was a kosher doll for her to play with as a kid? Interesting reading what the Guardian wrote about the doll's history http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/06/race-thatcher-golliwog & the comment on how racist they were to a black perspective, actually from a black perspective http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/06/bbc-race-golliwog which I saw in the paper. see they added some more in the Observer yesterday http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/08/race-row-carol-thatcher1 also funny that the guardian search engine page i just looked those urls up on linked to an ebay ad for cheap golliwog dolls http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=golliwog&sitesearch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search Stevo
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 01:56
|
||
Quite simple; personally I would not like to see the "Golly" disappear, or be "air-brushed" out of history, just because some people use the word "Golly"/"Golliwog" in a racist way.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 10:46
|
||
|
Is it me, or is there a clear contradiction between this suave harv wrote: there is no doubt that her utterance was racist. It described a race of people in a negative way. and this suave harv wrote: What I don't like is the assumption that if someone uses a certain word they're instantly labeled a 'racist'. There are certainly degrees of racism, and as you make clear, there are those like your mum who uses racist language and yet isn't an active hateful racist. The thing is, it's that casual, socially embedded racism that lets the active racism flourish. It makes the hateful racist feel they're drawing on a widespread discontent. It also serves to make anyone not white feel like they have a major struggle to be taken as an equal. Hell, if people can denigrate your entire ethnicity and not even 'mean anything' by it, what hope for real respect? It's only by examining the power of the words we use, consciously considering the rules and norms we're handed down can we unpick ourselves from many of the damaging activities that they steer us towards.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 10:54
|
||
|
I think you're right that Clarkson and Moyles get away with worse. I strongly suspect that it is, as you suggest, that they're a fucksight more popular than Thatcher. I also wonder whether it makes any odds that they're blokes and blokes are meant to be all boorish and table-thumpy, whereas women are meant to be more sensitive. Additionally, I think that Thatcher hit on the top-scorer in the hierarchy of oppression. It's much more acceptable to discriminate against someone because of their sexuality or gender than it is because of their ethnicity. Imagine if Moyles was as racist as he is sexist, his head would roll before long. shanshee_allures wrote: Then along come the white middle classes speaking on behalf of an entire people and say 'oh it's ok for THEM to say that word'... What do they mean by THEM? I think that's pretty clear. 'Them' refers to the people who were denigrated by the word in question. As a white person my use of nigger is totally different that a black person using it. Whilst oppression and discrimination can and do cut both ways, it's a matter of historical precedent and social norms. In a society where people are denigrated for not being white, male, English, heterosexual, financially solvent, etc, then jibes based on these things carry more weight and need to be picked up on. Jo Brand may well be sexist to men. That is not something to condone (so now *everybody* is criticised for things they didn't choose about themselves? Thanks Jo), but it is different to being sexist against women, as that compounds the already degraded position of women.
|
|||
|
suave harv 704 posts |
Feb 10, 2009, 11:00
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Is it me, or is there a clear contradiction between this suave harv wrote: there is no doubt that her utterance was racist. It described a race of people in a negative way. and this suave harv wrote: What I don't like is the assumption that if someone uses a certain word they're instantly labeled a 'racist'. A real racist will activley discrimate in real life surely? Just because someone says something someone percieves as being racist, does not by default make them a racist. I see no contridiction. I really shouldn't get involved in all this, because there's no way on here that I don't make myself look like a 'Daily Mail' reader when I sound off (that's the latest dig for those who don't throw their arms up in horror isn't it?). I just think we''re getting somewhere caught between the thought police and modern parents when we sack people for stupid things said glibly in private life.
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Edited Feb 10, 2009, 11:18
Feb 10, 2009, 11:11
|
||
|
I know exactly what you are saying SH, there's always some sort of witch-hunt going on in these parts, don't let it bother you! More people know what you mean than you think.... .....er...yeah! ;-)
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
