Racist window display

Jul 21, 2010 15:50

Oh Australia, I love but what is with the race fail nowadays ( Read more... )

fyi: tags =/= wank, stupid racism, hot fresh wank in 30 min or less, as featured on sf_d, mod comment, wank

Leave a comment

ljmydayaway July 21 2010, 07:10:25 UTC
Those dolls are ridiculously cute, despite whatever connotations might be attached to it.

Reply

kimerastorm July 21 2010, 07:18:54 UTC
The dolls themselves are adorable, and (if I am understanding the plot of the original stories correctly) the stories are a good example of learning not to judge someone as 'wicked' or 'evil' just because they look different from you.

Its a sad thing that this adorable character was twisted into a racist symbol by a petty few... and I think sadder that instead of trying to reclaim the good, people want to just put poor Golly in the attic and forget him.

Reply

blasphemusfish July 21 2010, 07:41:04 UTC
A little old lady who looked after my bro and I when we were kids knitted us a bunch of them as Christmas presents, I grew up thinking they were wicked cool, I had no idea about their history or anything back then. It would still be inappropriate of me to deny other people to feel offended by the dolls, whatever they personally mean to me.

Just to add that they weren't always depicted well in early books, depending on the author. Enid Blyton named one of them the n word even. Those connections to racism are always going to be made.

Reply

cyberninjasio July 21 2010, 13:31:25 UTC
This is because Upton never copyrighted the term, so anyone could use it. Hence, racist folks used it and made it truly truly awful.

Reply

andalusi July 21 2010, 21:25:54 UTC
Those connections to racism are always going to be made.

Yes, they bloody will be, given that the doll's design is based on a racist caricature of black people to begin with. Upton crafted the doll based on minstrel show performers in blackface, so it's not as if this awful doll ever had anything other a racist origin.

Reply

childthursday July 21 2010, 11:58:16 UTC
Even the "good" depictions of the golliwog fit the "happy Negro" stereotype - think the characters that Bill "Bojangles" Robinson played in Shirley Temple movies. What's so positive to reclaim about a character that's depicted as a bumbling buffoon who needs to be shown the "right" way to be by White people?

Reply

sharz July 21 2010, 11:59:51 UTC
Thank you, this exactly!

Reply

numb_crystal July 21 2010, 12:18:51 UTC
ia

Reply

anewcliche July 21 2010, 14:04:41 UTC
This.

Reply

kimerastorm July 21 2010, 17:17:04 UTC
Had the stories evolved with the times, Golly could have been a mascot for racial diversity.

Yes the minstrel stereotype was terrible, but hollywood got over it, and so did the vast majority of modern society. The main reason why this particular character will never get a chance to evolve is because racist (insert favorite word here: I prefer jackasses) twisted the character well beyond all reason and made it a symbol of their hate.

Reply

kimerastorm July 21 2010, 17:30:53 UTC
Which of course is why the OP is upset about them making an appearance in a bookstores window.

With their history, the dolls have no business outside of a museum. Its still sad to see yet another example of how even children's toys can be used to promote racisim.

Reply

childthursday July 21 2010, 18:18:04 UTC
They haven't got over it, they've transformed it into the "magical Negro." The two ideas that pop into my head are Morgan Freeman in "The Bucket List" and Jennifer Hudson in "Sex and the City" - two random minority characters who lack all the advantages of the (main) White character, randomly show up in their lives and fix everything, then disappear. They're simply less overt now.

And you don't have to be a jackass to see the problem with the Goilliwog's face. Or are Black people supposed to be okay with the stereotyped depiction of themselves? The depiction was racist in and of itself. It didn't have to be attached to a hate group for that to be true.

Reply

kimerastorm July 21 2010, 18:45:55 UTC
And you dont think that the features could have been changed?
We had the same depiction of black features in cartoons, advertisments, etc etc, and we dont have them anymore.. why? Because the artists/creators found less offensive ways to depict things.

All I am saying is that it is a pity that something that could have been used positively was used negatively. I agree with the OP that these dolls have no business being in a shop window.

Reply

childthursday July 21 2010, 21:20:01 UTC
They've changed the faces on Uncle Ben's Rice and Aunt Jemima's Syrup, and it's still racist.

Reply

candyxpanties July 22 2010, 05:48:15 UTC
Genuinely curious here, 'cause I've never heard this before, how are they racist??

Reply

childthursday July 22 2010, 06:15:06 UTC
They are a continuation of the same old stereotypes, in new packaging. Aunt Jemima is the expected "Mammy" figure, the motherly, asexual serving woman, at the service of everyone except her own family. Uncle Ben is the loyal old slave figure, the man who cooks and serves the Old Massa and continues to serve the family.

You can change the clothes and alter the faces, and they history is still there.

A good book is Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Rastus: Blacks in Advertising, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow .

Reply


Leave a comment

Up