Hm, interesting that it seems related to the infamous 'blackface' from the mid 19th century. It also seems related to Zwarte Peit, as well as this original "Golliwogg" character created in a children's book.
Agree with another commenter, both you and the shop owner are right - it's both racist, and not.
I'm not that commenter, but some things are subjective, including racism. What one person finds to be gravely racist, another will see only as cultural or even as simply unintentional. In general, anything that has the potential to offend will offend or not offend on a personal spectrum.
As an example, I recently saw a Youtube video featuring a survivor of Auschwitz dancing with his children and grandchildren at various concentration camps, to the tune of "I Will Survive". There were many reactions to it -- some people felt like it was a very positive, affirming experience that celebrated the joy of life and the determination that overcame that awful place. Others felt it was offensive and disgusting. They were dancing literally on the graves of those who died in the camps and did not escape.
Both points of view are valid. It is both offensive and not offensive.
On the other hand, you're also talking about a book seller. If you stopped selling every book that had potentially offensive material, what are you going to sell? Keep in mind that even books like Harry Potter and classics like The Catcher in the Rye have been banned and protested as being offensive.
But they weren't selling books about golliwoggs, I wouldn't object to that. I'm aware that there are books with offensive content out there and I won't read them if I don't think I can't handle it.
They had them as props in the window display and no context for them at all. I can't choose not to look at them. I don't think it's particularly censorious to ask them to take it down.
I didn't say that it was. Simply that, from their perspective, virtually any display they would come up with could be taken the wrong way. Harry Potter? Wizardry and magic and the occult. Romance novels? Promoting promiscuity. Twilight? Necrophilia.
You're not in the wrong for being offended, but as you see here, there are plenty of people that don't necessarily find the dolls to be offensive.
I don't fault you for lodging a complaint -- that's fair, and the store can decide what to do about it. I was simply responding to your inquiry about how something can be racist and not racist at the same time.
Oh yuck. I was hoping (yes, I knew it was likely in vain) that there was a better reason than that.
Geez, if it's just for "3 year olds like them" (3 year olds don't read or buy books)... why not display Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls. They don't have any negative connotations as far as I know. >_>;;;
Just because people "don't see" why something is racist does not make it non-racist. I know people who don't see why calling Obama a "mulatto" is racist, because mulatto is "just a word for a biracial person!" Uh...yeah.
Intent doesn't matter, and actually, whether or not someone is offended doesn't matter either. The Golliwog doll itself - even detached from the racist and classist stories that created it - is in and of itself racist. The exaggerated facial features are a stereotypical (and recognizable) caricature of people of African descent. Displaying those images is dehumanizing and encourages people to continue to see non-Whites in a negative light.
I had no idea the term "mulatto" was a racist term; I say that as a person whose parents were of different races. I honestly always just thought it was a term to describe one of black/white interracial mix.
That said, I'm alway shocked (and not in an omgyoureracist! way) when I do hear it because it just isn't a word I hear often at all.
"Mulatto" is a word tied up in a lot of negative history. It was one of many categories for defining a Black person who had some amount of White blood - quadroon, octoroon, and others. "Mulatto" is an explicit reference to the idea that someone who isn't entirely White shouldn't be considered White at all, and doesn't even really belong in the group of non-Whites: they're freaks who shouldn't exist.
Biracial or multiracial are far more common and preferred terms, because they are more inclusive. People who use the word mulatto and similar are demonstrating a deep ignorance to both the original context of the word and to the large strides taken in how we conceive of race these days.
In addition to what Thursday said...the etymology of the word mulatto probably comes from "mule", the offspring of a horse and a donkey. It was likening mixed-race people (particularly half-black, half-white people) to work animals.
It also makes it difficult that what's offensive in one language absolutely isn't in another. In Danish "mulat" (the direct translation of mulatto) is the correct, PC term for a biracial person. Since it's completely acceptable in Danish, I would have had no clue at all that it was offensive/racist in the US.
Agree with another commenter, both you and the shop owner are right - it's both racist, and not.
Reply
Not being sarcastic by the way.
Reply
As an example, I recently saw a Youtube video featuring a survivor of Auschwitz dancing with his children and grandchildren at various concentration camps, to the tune of "I Will Survive". There were many reactions to it -- some people felt like it was a very positive, affirming experience that celebrated the joy of life and the determination that overcame that awful place. Others felt it was offensive and disgusting. They were dancing literally on the graves of those who died in the camps and did not escape.
Both points of view are valid. It is both offensive and not offensive.
Reply
Reply
Reply
They had them as props in the window display and no context for them at all. I can't choose not to look at them. I don't think it's particularly censorious to ask them to take it down.
Reply
You're not in the wrong for being offended, but as you see here, there are plenty of people that don't necessarily find the dolls to be offensive.
I don't fault you for lodging a complaint -- that's fair, and the store can decide what to do about it. I was simply responding to your inquiry about how something can be racist and not racist at the same time.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Geez, if it's just for "3 year olds like them" (3 year olds don't read or buy books)... why not display Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls. They don't have any negative connotations as far as I know. >_>;;;
Reply
Reply
Intent doesn't matter, and actually, whether or not someone is offended doesn't matter either. The Golliwog doll itself - even detached from the racist and classist stories that created it - is in and of itself racist. The exaggerated facial features are a stereotypical (and recognizable) caricature of people of African descent. Displaying those images is dehumanizing and encourages people to continue to see non-Whites in a negative light.
Reply
That said, I'm alway shocked (and not in an omgyoureracist! way) when I do hear it because it just isn't a word I hear often at all.
Interesting.
*not meant to be a snarky comment! :)
Reply
Biracial or multiracial are far more common and preferred terms, because they are more inclusive. People who use the word mulatto and similar are demonstrating a deep ignorance to both the original context of the word and to the large strides taken in how we conceive of race these days.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment