[Closed] So is this racist?

No. It's a good opportunity to teach kids about why such images are offensive. But once you start Bowdlerizing the past you're on a very slippery slope.

What's actually going on, though ? The chap in question just seems to be having a good time sitting up on that ledge.

I'm obviously missing something...

Have you considered researching the topic first?

its an anachronism that is broadly racist and gave us the term wog which is racist.

I would rather we looked at the way we describe stuff today as "gay" tbh than pointed out the errors that were present in society 80 years ago.

its a anachronism that is broadly racist and gave us the term wog which is racist

Yeah, but [i]golliwog[/i] isn't written on the drawing, it's just a picture.

Have you considered researching the topic first

Typically JY to add such a condescending edit, BTW.

🙂

Of course I have - I lived through the whole jam jar lid thing.

it's just a picture.

I see where this thread is going

Enjoy yourself

Ps the other was ruder FWIW but hey you take the high ground here with your tasteful posts, let your inner beauty shine through 😉

I had a cuddly toy golliwog as a kid. It's name was Gollie.

No

No it's not racist and the bell end who made the complaint should be prosecuted for wasting police time! Way too many over sensitive little buttholes about that are pandered to for some reason!

Of a golliwog

No. A picture of a black kid with an afro.

Why do you see a golliwog...?

I'm more concerned by the fact that the white rabbit appears to be looking up Alice's skirt.

I would rather we looked at the way we describe stuff today as "gay" tbh than pointed out the errors that were present in society 80 years ago

Amen to that.

I'm more offended by the big cock in the bottom left

bencooper - Member

No. It's a good opportunity to teach kids about why such images are offensive. But once you start Bowdlerizing the past you're on a very slippery slope.

Spot on.
Opportunity for a history lesson there.

We need to be able to measure progress - altering texts and historical documents makes liars of us all.

I would rather we looked at the way we describe stuff today as "gay"

Spot on.
Opportunity for a history lesson there.

We need to be able to measure progress - altering texts and historical documents makes liars of us all.

Agreed

and we have this [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185 ]Conservatives purge old speeches from online archives[/url]

I had a cuddly toy golliwog as a kid. It's name was Gollie.

Me too. My mum has a huge Golly collection including probably everything Golly related that Robertson sold and some Noddy first editions. In my limited experience the people that find Gollies offensive are the same ones that call people 'coconuts' because although they have black skin, they act like a white person. I don't think you can get any more racist than that, I always thought people acted like people regardless of their skin colour.

You can't blame the woman, she's been schooled in the 'I have a right to take offence to anything any everything' ideology that our tabloid 'Ban This Sick Filth!!!!' mass media push onto us daily.

I love these threads. Brings 'em all out. 🙂

Your right devash thankfully you are the lone voice of calm reason in a sea of hysteria. thansks for your calming wel lmeasured and reasonable words

hmm it is concerning that the rules are set by the offended, but does anyone get really offended by it's removal?

You not going to answer my question then, Junkyard ?

deadlydarcy - Member

I love these threads. Brings 'em all out.

Who?

all the people he wishes to throw a derisory blanket over in one short sentence.

Oooh, get you girlfriends. 🙂

No, seriously, who does it bring out?
I'm genuinely interested.

Anyway, here's a picture of a golliwog for teasel's benefit. Don't blame me, it was the first that Google threw out. I reckon it's quite similar to the "black kid with an afro" despite me not googling that term. I dunno... Whaddya think?

[IMG] [/IMG]

Oooh, get you girlfriends.

and a derisory handkerchief

Damn, that's me outed...

DD, not being funny, but are you going to bother answering?

Sorry if this has already been said, but surely it's only going to be seen as a Golliwog by those who know it's a Golliwog and those people will also (hopefully) understand what is bad about Golliwogs, whereas the innocent children who need to be protected will simply see a black doll, which is fine and dandy!!

Yes, bring back Golliwogs I say. But give 'em a different name this time for crissakes.

which is fine and dandy!!

Like Amos and Andy??!? Racist!!!!!!!!!!!

Like Amos and Andy??!? Racist!!!!!!!!!!!

I've never heard that and don't really understand it,I honestly wasn't trying to be funny or racist.

Is a golliwog actually a symbol of racial hatred?

I can see why it could be considered offensive. But in the context of the time, when people of different skin colours were little more than fictional characters for most people in the western world anyway, is it surprising they imagined and created these caricatures?

It's all interesting history, and as pointed out early on in this thread, I'm sure we can learn a lot from it.

I think as a minimum it is a symbol of racial disrespect, I reckon if I was black and had experienced racism in my life, then this might piss me off.
Even if we were capable of deciding of it is racist or not, I ask again, who is harmed by its removal? Is it so bad to just take it down?

I ask again, who is harmed by its removal? Is it so bad to just take it down?

We all lose if we take it down.

Britain is one of the most tolerant and least racist countries in the world. But we've only got to that state fairly recently.

Racism is ignorance - to deny the fact that this ignorance was pretty much endemic until very recently is to deny the possibility that other prejudices can be eradicated just as quickly, or could reappear in an equally short time.

Removing this is a rejection of our fallability and promotes a false, idealised view of humanity.
We need to be reminded of the consequences of our potential ignorance.

yeah maybe.I take your point, and I can't say I disagree entirely. But couldn't we just record all that history in books and documentaries/films, and take down the random bits of art that might offend someone? Just because it might show even more tolerance to allow the offended to make themselves feel better?

Wardie is the school I went to. Totally forgot about about this. It been a long time.
Its not a gross caricature so I don't see how its offensive. It is however the menace in the picture and it pretty successful in that. The complainer is no doubt insecure and feels the threat.
I guess the equivalent is is you painted it over with a wee character with red hair a kilt and tam o shanter with an evil face, or say andy pandy for that matter would you be offended?
For me no.

Was there even a golliwog in the Alice in Wonderland story?

what about the apology for Turing being prosecuted as gay or the apology for bloody sunday ?
have we all lost out by sanitising history or have we recognised parts of our past were wrong and done things to redress these?

The past was a different place for sure and we do need to remember but we dont need to tolerate it or turn a blind eye to it
There is a difference.

would you be offended?

As someone born Catholic, should I be offended every Bonfire Night?

Surely we can understand historical context?

so could they leave it there and just create some other kind of art/installation next to it to apologise/explain for the racism?

No. It's a good opportunity to teach kids about why such images are offensive. But once you start Bowdlerizing the past you're on a very slippery slope.

I agree with this, but there is also something about whether we still celebrate those people and things from the past who's values no longer sit easy with contemporary acceptability, whether that's the art itself (Enid Blyton's been censored, or edited for taste, in the editions you can buy for your kids today) or the artist (Wagner? Eric Gill, Gary Glitter, come to that Lewis Carroll might well be helping Operation Yewtree with their enquiries today).

Truth is, there's no consistency, you don't hear Gary Glitter much on the radio these days, but Eric Gill's Prospero and Ariel still adorn Broadcasting House. Go figure. Is it better for today's kids to be able to read Enid Blyton without mum or dad needing to have some heavy conversations about how views on people of different ethnicities have evolved? Dunno. I guess it's always happened to an extent, from puritans chopping the genitals off classical sculpture to my mum's 1940s copy of Shakespeare that has the knob jokes missing

In that context, I don't know that there is an answer to the OP's question unless it's "Yes, if someone finds it racist." I'm pretty much of the view that offensiveness is like beauty - it's in the eye of the beholder. If someone finds something offensive, then it is offensive, that's the word "offensive" means.