But the Golly (story, brand-name, collectible toys) isn't part of US pop culture, the way it was in the UK - which is why I'm so curious as to why it was included: *were* there mass-produced toys of this sort, like with Raggedy Ann/Andy, that have been successfully edited out of public consciousness (unlike other racist pop culture artifacts, some of which have been -literally - whitewashed, like the "lawn jockeys", and are still defended by the "traditionalists," like the golli-pleaders in Britain) or was it so common for white mothers to sew their daughters black-caricature ragdolls in Pittsburgh, at least, that the agency would have used it rather than a more-typical teddy-bear? Given that billboard buys have never been cheap, I'm sure it wasn't an accident, but the message - the overt - is really complicated, and the historical/cultural questions it raises are like pulling a thread on a sweater.
It's one of those things like accidentally finding out that the US invaded Russia to try to restore the Empire, once, and we've edited it out of our national Narrative.
My impression from a quick internet trawl is that gollys were certainly common in the US at one point (jam!Robertson was inspired by seeing them there), but perhaps died out sooner. And IIRC, in my early 80s childhood, though they appeared in the odd Blyton book and on jam-jars, they were not by this point actually around as toys any more in the UK. But I don't know enough (anything) about its cultural significance at the point in US political/race history to make an informed stab at why/how the advert is using it, though I agree that it surely wouldn't have been an accident. My best guess (and its completely a guess) would be that if gollys were by the time of the poster becoming less socially acceptible, then there's a potential message of "These people are demanding that your innocent daughter not have her harmless doll, but they don't care about the Evil Birth of a Nation Child Rapists!" Which is pretty much the same argument as the modern ones that e.g. opposing detention without trial de facto means supporting terrorism, and its Political Correctness Gone Mad! to argue otherwise.
(And thanks for putting up an intriguing advert. I really need to know more US C20 history, but then I really need to know more history full stop.)
It's one of those things like accidentally finding out that the US invaded Russia to try to restore the Empire, once, and we've edited it out of our national Narrative.
Reply
(And thanks for putting up an intriguing advert. I really need to know more US C20 history, but then I really need to know more history full stop.)
Reply
Leave a comment