So is this racist?
Edinburgh City Council said the mural does not reflect Wardie Primary School’s attitudes
Police are investigating a complaint about a mural at an Edinburgh primary school which features a golliwog.
The scene from Alice in Wonderland in Wardie Primary’s assembly hall dates back to 1936 and was recently restored with a Heritage Lottery Fund.
Our equalities policies and approaches are robustly multi-cultural and anti-racist, promoting diversity and good relationships among pupils”
Edinburgh City Council
A mother has lodged a complaint about the image describing it as racist.
Edinburgh City Council said it understands the offensiveness of the image but said it does not reflect the attitudes of the school.
An Edinburgh City Council spokesman said: “The Alice in Wonderland mural at Wardie Primary School was painted in 1936 and is of both historical and artistic importance as evidenced by the fact it recently received full Heritage Lottery Funding support to restore the work.
“While we understand the offensiveness of the image, it is in no way indicative of the attitudes of either the school or the council.
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “Police in Edinburgh have received a complaint in relation to a mural at a primary school in the Trinity area.
“Officers are now liaising with Edinburgh City Council education department with regards to this matter.
“Police Scotland treats all reports relating to hate incidents extremely seriously and will thoroughly investigate whenever a report of this nature is made.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
it’s just a picture.
Of a golliwog 🙄
What your point – its not a golliwog as it doe snot say this?
I see where this thread is going
Ps the other was ruder FWIW but hey you take the high ground here with your tasteful posts, let your inner beauty shine through 😉Posted 4 years ago
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.
Opportunity for a history lesson there.
We need to be able to measure progress – altering texts and historical documents makes liars of us all.Posted 4 years agobruneepSubscriber
Opportunity for a history lesson there.
We need to be able to measure progress – altering texts and historical documents makes liars of us all.
and we have this Conservatives purge old speeches from online archivesPosted 4 years agoTuckerUKMember
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.Posted 4 years agoJEngledowMember
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!!Posted 4 years agobutcherMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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?Posted 4 years agostabilizersSubscriber
Wardie is the school I went to. Totally forgot about about this. It been a long time.Posted 4 years ago
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.
The topic ‘So is this racist?’ is closed to new replies.