From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Robertson's Golly Badges.
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:56:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec15.075024.20279@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.011102.20389@netcom.com>, sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>> Tim Streater writes:
>> >Well here we are divided by a common language again. When I was a small boy, I
>> >had a collection of cloth dolls of which my Golly was the biggest and best. It
>> >was in no way grotesque. Good - this explains a lot. I could never understand
>> >what Americans had against Gollies. It almost seemed hypocitical, given the
>> >existance in any toyshop here of dolls with black faces. I can only assume that
>> >the original Golliwog character was a figure of fun, laughed at or taunted
>> >simply because he was black. Can you tell us more, Sue?
>> >
>> 
>> Hmm.  Sorry, I think that's way off track.  There are plenty of dolls (now) 
>> with black skin.  They look more or less like all the other dolls.  Gollies
>> look uncomfortably like many rather less kind (read stereotypic) depictions 
>> of black people which were fairly common not too many decades ago.
>
>I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but I couldn't let this
>pass. How is a golliwog somehow more offensive that any other rag doll?
>All of them look pretty grotesque to me, the only difference with gollies
>is that they are made with black cotton instead of pink. 

You do have a point.  It does not alter the fact that Golliwog rag dolls
are not going to come back into style in the USA, nor will the Upton
books come back into print, nor will Robertson's jams & marmalade add
Golly Brooch offers to the jars intended for 'States.  Noddy books will
likewise not be reprinted with golliwog-ish characters in them (not that
these are big sellers in the US anyway).

This also does not alter the fact that the original Golliwog dolls were 
patterned after a "grotesque" image, in the sense that they overemphasized
features which white people in the USA (and elsewhere) denigrated in black 
people.  People of all colors in the USA still remember this, and they
aren't too interested in having or manufacturing things which recall this.
Call it weakness, call it paranoia (oh, you did, see below), it doesn't
matter.  It's just a doll, and my 6 year old is not going to grow up warped
because she doesn't (can't) own one.  She'll grow up warped because WE are.
:-)



>> a figure of fun/laughed at/taunted due to his color, BUT BECAUSE BLACK 
>> PEOPLE WERE (are).  This is not something in the recent past which
>> we generally wish to celebrate.  
>
>This sounds a bit like paranoia. I am not trying to play down the effects
>of racism and I will admit that the US probably had a bigger problem at
>the time (due to having a bigger minority) but there does seem to be a
>weird reaction in the US such that whole subjects become taboo simply
>because one small subsection of it may cause offense to some people. It
>always smacks of over-reaction to me.


We also used to own black people over here.  This changes the cultural
equation just a teeny bit.  I'm not saying I have to pay all sorts of
major penalties because some dead white people once owned black people in this
country, but I don't think a few minor concessions are out of order.  

>
>> BTW I consider Barbie/Cindy dolls to be grotesque female dolls,
>> but I don't expect them to be taken off the shelves any time soon.  :-)
>
>Don't understand the smiley (maybe the wrong group). But if you happy to
>accept the banning of one brand of toy because they can be seen as
>depicting a degrading stereotype then why would you smile off another
>example?
>

Point 1:  I'm not "happy" about it.  I don't care one way or the other.
I do not wish to campaign for the introduction of the Golliwog dolls,
however, since I don't see the "added value".  It's unneccessary.

Point 2:  I haven't minded Barbie & co. too much because the male
companion dolls manufactured to go with them are just as grotesque (and
uglier).  However, it's just not fair.  There are no Asian and Hispanic
etc. featured "fashion" dolls.  Why should white and black people be the
only groups which have to put up with such horrendous distortion?  Maybe
because the other groups are too smart to speak up...

ObChristmasAnecdote:  My older cousins received a full complement of 
Barbie/Ken dolls for Christmas eons ago.  My aunt looked at the hooters on
Barbie, and was seized with a sudden graphic thought.  She grabbed the
Ken doll, which had yet to be manipulated much, and ripped off his
trousers.  After all, Barbie was the first semi-anatomically-correct
doll any of them had ever seen.  You can hardly wonder at her anxiety.


Merry Christmas,
sue
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british