As a child I had a 'Gollywog' .. and my mum even knitted him a girlfriend Sally.

 

As a child I had no concept that these were anything but my favourite dolls.

 

As a adult I am more than well aware of the inherent racism cast on Gollywogs.

 

..and so when my son was born and we named him after a close friend of my husbands, who happened to be Jamaican and very black I decided to ask his opinion of these toys.

I still have my 2 dolls and had intended my son to be able to play with them.

 

He thought they were cute and said he would be insulted if i didn't keep them. He said he wasn't insulted and considered racism only exists where there is intent.

 

Whilst we should never forget where such images originate, we should stop taking away innocence by making them evil.

 

So Sally and Golly remain, although a little the worse for wear from being played with and well loved. That I loved and played with them had nothing to do with their colour or history.

 

We can't live in a sterile world - some horrendous things happened in the past - and banning Gollywogs isn't going to stop it.

 

Playing with Golly & Sally didn't make my sons racist, nor did them singing Baa Baa Black sheep.

 

 

 

 

have consulted 2 passing 14 year olds ....... 1 white 1 Indian.

 

Firstly 14 year old 1 wont talk to me for telling 14 year old 2 he used to play with my dolls

 

Secondly 14 year old 2 thinks it is all "stupid"

 

They have decided that even if the dolls were created in a racist society - we don't live in quite the same society - there is still racism but not caused or affected by Gollywogs.

 

 

I thought that Golliwog was a creation of Enid Blyton, no one can claim surely that Enid Blyton was a racist

 

Shows how much you actually know then mate.... Gollywogg was a character created by an American children's book illustrator called Florence Kate Upton in 1895, and it has direct correlations to the "blackface" performers, because Upton modelled Gollywogg on a Minstrel doll she had as a child... The "Blackface" Minstrels existed in the US from around 1789, a time when the slave trade was still thriving... Still think that this is all just "innocent kid's stuff"....??

 

To quote -

 

"American darky images and Upton's minstrel-doll-inspired Golliwogg had a profound influence on the way blacks were depicted worldwide. Black and white minstrel troupes toured Europe and were somewhat successful for a time. As in the U.S., there was a history of involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and an ongoing European colonial presence in Africa and the Caribbean, as well. Shared notions of white supremacy likely contributed to the popularity of darky iconography, which proliferated on both sides of the Atlantic. Unlike in the United States, however, in Europe and Asia, scant resident populations of people of black African descent likely posed little challenge to the racist attitudes of the day. As a result, blackface and darky iconography and the stereotypes they perpetuated prompted no notable objections and, consequently, sensibilities regarding them often have been very different from those in America. For Europeans and Asians, many of whom had never seen a black person in the flesh before World War II, the iconography of the blackface darky, as in the United States, became de rigueur[citation needed]. Internationally, darky icons proliferated far beyond the minstrel stage and, for many non-blacks, became reified in the human beings they caricatured. The grinning, pop-eyed distortions acquired a life of their own. By the 1920s and '30s, for example, French posters advertising performances by even respected performers such as Josephine Baker and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson routinely were in the darky mold. After the Second World War, Japan flooded the U.S. with darky and mammy kitchenware, ashtrays, toys, and ceramics. U.S. cartoons from the 1930s and 1940s often featured characters in blackface gags as well as other racial and ethnic caricatures. Blackface was one of the influences in the development of characters like Mickey Mouse.[1] The United Artists 1933 release "Mickey's Mellerdrammer" — the name a corruption of "melodrama" thought to harken back to the earliest minstrel shows — was a film short based on a production of Uncle Tom's Cabin by the Disney characters. Mickey, of course, was already black, but the advertising poster for the film shows Mickey with exaggerated, orange lips; bushy, white sidewhiskers; and his now trademark white gloves.

 

 

Reproduction of an old, tin sign advertising Picaninny Freeze, a frozen treatIn the U.S., by the 1950s, the NAACP had begun calling attention to such portrayals of African Americans and mounted a campaign to put an end to blackface performances and depictions. For decades, darky images had been seen in the branding of everyday products and commodities such as Picaninny Freeze, the Coon Chicken Inn[2] restaurant chain and the like. With the eventual successes of the modern day Civil Rights Movement, such blatantly racist branding practices ended in the U.S., and blackface became an American taboo."

 

EXACTLY that is my point

 

Let's ban Tom and Jerry too because of the cruelty to cats involved when Jerry would tie up Tom's tail and so on :manson: I never treated cats badly because of what I saw on Tom and Jerry any more than a child will become racist through playing with Golliwog

 

Golliwog was just a childs toy

 

^_^ I'm certainly not too shallow to see that they are racist but to people who are not educated in this area yet (i.e. children), they are just toys like any other toys...

They have decided that even if the dolls were created in a racist society - we don't live in quite the same society - there is still racism but not caused or affected by Gollywogs.

 

 

It hardly helps though does it, and sorry but it does enforce certain views and stereotypes, the very thing that organisations such as the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement fought against. What do we do then, go back to the "good old days" and laugh along again at Jim Davidson's "Chalky" sketches (oh, a black guy called "Chalky", ohhhh, how fukkin' HILARIOUS..... <_< ), or laugh along with with Bernard Manning's "there were no P@kis in Dunkirk" routine...? Oh, my sides are positively splitting....

 

There is a very clear historical racist intent inherent in this imagery and in these dolls, like it or not. It's very easy for us living in the UK of 2007 to be so incredibly blase about it, but if we allow this to go unchallenged, then you open the floodgates to a LOT worse as far as I'm concerned....

If anything these dolls helped race relations in this country, lil white kids hugging a cute lil black doll helps foster race relations and encourage white kids to get on with black kids and so on, a child and lets face it 90% of gollywog users were between 5 and 10 years old playing with a lil black doll is not going to associate it with slavery and the KKK they wont know what that means but it will help lil white kids to see black kids as cute and friendly through playing with that doll, kids should just be allowed to enjoy their childhood and let them learn about cultural identities later, I dont see anything wrong with these dolls, just about everyone over 30 on this board had a gollywog but are not racist, is Mikey a racist ? is Suggy a racist ? NO like everyone else they were just kids enjoying their childhood

 

The Gollywogg is NOT simply a "li'l black baby doll" though is it Craig, I would have no problem if someone marketed a black baby doll which actually looked like a black baby in the same way a white baby doll looks like a white baby... Just look at it ffs... How does that bear any resemblance to any living person whatsoever...? It is a gross, evil caricature of an entire race of people, not a valid representation at all - the huge bug eyes, the big, thick lips, the wiry hair... It's fukkin' horrendous, and it IS the product of a racist society that traded in slaves at one one point, the two things cannot be separated... Are we going to market "little Jewish dolls" with big noses then (just a bit of "fun for the kids" innit..?), maybe have Concentration Camp fatigue clothing accessories...? Hey, it's all "just a bit of fun for the kids"... You still aint answered that query mate....

 

And, I do have certain issues with "Action Man", I do think it encourages a certain sense of "militarism" and jingoism... But even then it's nowhere near on the scale that Gollywogg is in terms of demeaning an entire race... "Action Man" is not so blatantly negative as Gollywogg is, he at least has a sense of dignity about him... Gollywogg has absolutely no dignity to it whatsoever.....

And why hasn't anyone pointed out the futility of asking a WOOLLY sheep if he has any wool!?!?!?

ROFLOL!

 

Very good point, and it's of course utterly ridiculous to have to say 'woolly' sheep when the sheep in question IS black. Does this mean that as of now we can't call black people black or white people white?

 

Perhaps we'll be know as the Flesh breed in future.

There is a very clear historical racist intent inherent in this imagery and in these dolls, like it or not. It's very easy for us living in the UK of 2007 to be so incredibly blase about it, but if we allow this to go unchallenged, then you open the floodgates to a LOT worse as far as I'm concerned....

 

But there was not any racist intent in my dolls ...... there in lies the issue - intent.

My grandmother gave me a colourful doll - popular at the time and my mother made me friend for him. Neither wanted more than providing a toy for me. I also had a white tiny tears with blonde hair and blue eyes -racist? .... and why were there no dolls with bright ginger hair??

 

Just because some people see them as racist doesn't mean everybody has to.

 

You will have to excuse me if I take the stance of my friend - who as a black Jamaican can trace his family back to plantation slavery. Racism is in the intent.

 

 

I do not judge people on their colour, religion or creed. Neither do I judge them on the actions of their ancestors.

 

All I do is ask they afford me the same courtesy.

Edited August 23, 200717 yr by ICR

I used them as dolls. Together with my blonde blue eyed milk maid. It's a sad world when a toy is seen as racist wehn the itention of those playing with it isn't. I'm not reading text about why it is said to be racist. I can't see anything wrong in any skin colouration. I've still got both the knitting patterens for gollies and milk maids - passed down to me by my Mum.

 

People are just people. Dolls are just dolls - although I wouldn't be too pleased if someone gave one of my kds a certain type of blow up one - of any colour.

 

I think the rest of the family would probably die laughing though.

I never thought this thread would last this long, it made interesting reading.

 

The reason I bought it up because I saw a news local report on TV, about Gollys still in shops, and people thought they shouldn't be selling them, and thought to myself why, as I used to own one when I was a young lad, but in todays society a golly doll is considered as racist, I just thought why make a big deal out of it, and I thought it would make an interesting topic in here.

Scott,

 

Of course Golliwogs background is racist based, but at the end of the day they are only bloody dolls.

 

Maybe you think all Disney films should be banned since secret papers (for 50 years) revealed in the 1990s that Walt Disney spied for the FBI on union activity in Hollywood, and illegally intimidated union activists, supported the concept of Nazism and was an anti-Semite.

 

Maybe you think http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0003ss/images/South%20Park.jpg these badges and cartoon series should be banned, as one of the chief characters comes from a disadvantaged background and always (for the first few series) met a nasty end, one is a Jew who is ridiculed by the fat overweight character. You also have the character Jesus (Christ) who is a well intentioned but weak politically correct Liberal. Aren't they also reinforcing stereotypes by lampooning them in a post-ironic way?

 

Then you have the Simpsons, whose owner of the Nuclear Plant (Mr Burns) happens to be a mean spirited Jew (another stereotype). Whilst the show is set in the fictional town of Springfield, and lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself.

 

Then you have Family Guy, whose chief character Peter Griffin is a stereotypical a bumbling but well-intentioned blue-collar worker and is an Irish-American Catholic. Whose youngest son is the diabolically evil infant Stewie Griffin, bent on world domination and the death of his mother. Stewie speaks fluently and eloquently, with an Upper Class English accent and stereotypical arch-villain phrases. Using your logic you could argue that Family Guy is offensive to the English as it reinforces the English upper class villain stereotype.

 

 

Personally there are much worse things to be worked up about likes of 50 Cent, The Game & Snoop Doggy Dogg records that are misogynistic towards females, encourage "Bad Boy" behaviour and glamourises gun culture. But hey what do you know because of their skin colour they are OK and can get away with it and nobody dares criticises them for being scared of being labelled "racist" by the PC brigade.

 

For example, Just look at this series of Big Brother, the utterly vile Charley got a white housemate chucked out of the show for using a racist term in a non offensive manner. Yet Charley took the mikey and used offensive racist terminology towards Asian people, yet nothing was done, nothing went out on the live feed or in the highlights show and no mention was made of the events by the production team. Yet four of the evicted housemates have all corroborated that these events occurred and were shocked that no action was taken. Of course I wonder what the outcry would have been had a white person had used offensive language towards an Asian.... Oh hang on we already know....... :rolleyes:

 

Sorry Scott, but I 100% agree with the former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe "The n***** of today's society in the UK is the hard working, tax paying white Englishman (or woman)".....

 

Scott,

 

Of course Golliwogs background is racist based, but at the end of the day they are only bloody dolls.

 

Maybe you think all Disney films should be banned since secret papers (for 50 years) revealed in the 1990s that Walt Disney spied for the FBI on union activity in Hollywood, and illegally intimidated union activists, supported the concept of Nazism and was an anti-Semite.

 

Maybe you think http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0003ss/images/South%20Park.jpg these badges and cartoon series should be banned, as one of the chief characters comes from a disadvantaged background and always (for the first few series) met a nasty end, one is a Jew who is ridiculed by the fat overweight character. You also have the character Jesus (Christ) who is a well intentioned but weak politically correct Liberal. Aren't they also reinforcing stereotypes by lampooning them in a post-ironic way?

 

Then you have the Simpsons, whose owner of the Nuclear Plant (Mr Burns) happens to be a mean spirited Jew (another stereotype). Whilst the show is set in the fictional town of Springfield, and lampoons many aspects of the human condition, as well as American culture, society as a whole, and television itself.

 

Then you have Family Guy, whose chief character Peter Griffin is a stereotypical a bumbling but well-intentioned blue-collar worker and is an Irish-American Catholic. Whose youngest son is the diabolically evil infant Stewie Griffin, bent on world domination and the death of his mother. Stewie speaks fluently and eloquently, with an Upper Class English accent and stereotypical arch-villain phrases. Using your logic you could argue that Family Guy is offensive to the English as it reinforces the English upper class villain stereotype.

Personally there are much worse things to be worked up about likes of 50 Cent, The Game & Snoop Doggy Dogg records that are misogynistic towards females, encourage "Bad Boy" behaviour and glamourises gun culture. But hey what do you know because of their skin colour they are OK and can get away with it and nobody dares criticises them for being scared of being labelled "racist" by the PC brigade.

 

For example, Just look at this series of Big Brother, the utterly vile Charley got a white housemate chucked out of the show for using a racist term in a non offensive manner. Yet Charley took the mikey and used offensive racist terminology towards Asian people, yet nothing was done, nothing went out on the live feed or in the highlights show and no mention was made of the events by the production team. Yet four of the evicted housemates have all corroborated that these events occurred and were shocked that no action was taken. Of course I wonder what the outcry would have been had a white person had used offensive language towards an Asian.... Oh hang on we already know....... :rolleyes:

 

Sorry Scott, but I 100% agree with the former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe "The n***** of today's society in the UK is the hard working, tax paying white Englishman (or woman)".....

 

Okay. for a start, "South Park", "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons" are clearly SATIRICAL and ironic, with no actual racist intent (I also believe that at least ONE of the creators of South Park is JEWISH himself, and isn't Matt Groening, the "Simpsons" creator, ALSO himself Jewish?)... Also, the fact that these cartoons are clearly NOT being marketed at children at all either, ALL "South Park" and "Family Guy" DVDs are 15 certificates; "The Simpsons" also implies through the themes it puts across a more sophisticated and clearly ADULT humourous content that kids just wont get about 90-odd per cent of... And "South Park" doesn't discriminate, it offends just about everyONE and everyTHING it possibly can and does it with style and humour (or at least it used to before it got extremely tired and boring... -_- ).

 

The Gollywogg has clear racist, demeaning connotations that these animations do not have, they are the products of white supremacists, "The Simpsons" and "South Park" are not; I'm sorry, but you are extremely foolish to even compare the two things, they clearly have totally different contexts and sub-texts....

 

Most of today's ©Rap music I would pull off the airwaves if I had my way tbh, and I've said so on other threads, so dont even try to go down that path either mate....

 

I have also said on other threads that the ignorant moron Charley should have been evicted for HER racist comments as well... So, again I am NOT being hypocritical....

 

How about you actually READ the bloody things I take the time and trouble to post mate before coming on here and implying that I dont have any consistency in my arguments..... <_<

But there was not any racist intent in my dolls ...... there in lies the issue - intent.

My grandmother gave me a colourful doll - popular at the time and my mother made me friend for him. Neither wanted more than providing a toy for me. I also had a white tiny tears with blonde hair and blue eyes -racist? .... and why were there no dolls with bright ginger hair??

 

Just because some people see them as racist doesn't mean everybody has to.

 

You will have to excuse me if I take the stance of my friend - who as a black Jamaican can trace his family back to plantation slavery. Racism is in the intent.

I do not judge people on their colour, religion or creed. Neither do I judge them on the actions of their ancestors.

 

All I do is ask they afford me the same courtesy.

 

As I say, just because YOU and your friends in your relatively safe, suburban European homes see no racial intent behind those dolls, does not mean that someone living in the actual reality of Trench Town, Kingson; Soweto, South Africa; or Harlem, New York, is gonna react in the same way does it....? I'm willing to bet if you went around those parts of the world wearing a Gollywogg pin badge or summat, you'd be incredibly lucky to get out of there alive.....

 

What I'm objecting to mostly here is not the fact that kids are playing with them, they dont know any better, so I can overlook that; no, my objections are that as mature adults who should know better, we shouldn't be making any kind of defence of them or making some sort of ludicrous, misty-eyed nostalgic missives, and see them for what they truly are - vile, evil stereotypes which denigrate and dehumanize a race of people created by slavemasters, colonialists and white supremacists....

 

Yeah, I did have one of these things as a kid, and NO, I dont miss the thing at all. Not after I found out what I did about them.... Bottom line, I dont have any kind of ridiculous nostalgic feelings about them....

I'm not reading text about why it is said to be racist

 

Well, if you refuse to read the text in the link I put up, frankly you have no right to comment about it not being a product of racism (it's a bit like slagging off a band without ever even having heard any of their recorded output, know what I mean..?)... I put that link up for a damn good reason, to inform people, but you seem to be happy to just ignore the facts and be blissfully ignorant. The "Perspectives" Forum is here for people willing to take the effort to read between the lines and make an informed opinion, but if you aint gonna do that...... I even made it incredibly simple for people too, I used a Wikipedia link; I could very easily have put up the names of Post-Colonial Historians, or found articles by Caribbean intellectuals and radical writers, but I thought those two things would've been going a bit too overboard for most to take in...

 

I had one of these dolls when I was a kid too, then I found out about their origins when I was a teenager and it just shocked me, I think ANY right-thinking person should be shocked by these facts..... As I said, if someone were to try and market and "Auschwitz Jew" doll or summat, I think there would be a cry of absolute outrage from the public.....

hmm... thinking about it, a 'gollywog' is clearly an offensive caricature, 'golly' being a term of surprise, 'wog' being an offensive term towards black people... look at it, a startled black person.

 

i dont think that when i grew up with it i thought anything of it. it was just a 'thing' on a marmalade jar. however the term WAS used as a term of racial abuse towards blacks at school in the early 70's..

 

just because we grew up with this image doesnt make it right.... i mean, anyone else remember the tv show 'the black and white minstral show'?.. we thought nowt about that at the time, but now its embarrassing to think we accepted this as 'normal'.

 

times change, we evolve (i hope), sometimes we go too far (ba ba black sheep), other times we get it right, reading the arguments i now do accept that gollywogs are offensive.

Sorry Scott, but I 100% agree with the former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe "The n***** of today's society in the UK is the hard working, tax paying white Englishman (or woman)".....

 

I find the fact that you agree with a vile, right-wing, homophobic, borderline racist, Catholic fanatic to be incredibly disturbing to be honest mate.... This woman is spouting the most offensive garbage imaginable, and it's totally innacurate as well... For a start, I'm PAID for my work (not forced into slavery on a Plantation..), I've not been dragged from my bed in the middle of the night, been clapped in leg irons and chains, bundled aboard a slave ship and sent off halfway around the sodding globe, I've not been harrassed, denied a job or been bullied at work for the colour of my skin in my life, EVER... So to even compare my existence as a white person in the 21st Century to a negro slave in the 18th Century is downright WRONG and utterly OFFENSIVE.... <_< <_< Absolute fukkin' garbage this woman spouts in unbelievable, no wonder nobody voted for her in Tory Party leadership contests...

 

There is real Slavery existing in this country mate, it exists in the underground sex industry - young girls from Eastern Europe basically abducted and sold into sexual slavery ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES.... You wanna talk about who the n*****rs in the UK of 2007 are....?? It sure as hell aint you bloody white, middle class ENGLISH MALES that's for fukkin' sure....... <_< <_<

 

John Lennon was FAR more accurate when he said "Woman is the N*****r of the world"... Certainly more accurate than that sh!t-spouting, ignorant Tory bint..... I mean, apart from anything else - what about the "hard working, tax-paying Scottish/Welsh/Irish person" then...? Fukkin' typical England-centric Tory tw@t..... <_< <_<

hmm... thinking about it, a 'gollywog' is clearly an offensive caricature, 'golly' being a term of surprise, 'wog' being an offensive term towards black people... look at it, a startled black person.

 

i dont think that when i grew up with it i thought anything of it. it was just a 'thing' on a marmalade jar. however the term WAS used as a term of racial abuse towards blacks at school in the early 70's..

 

just because we grew up with this image doesnt make it right.... i mean, anyone else remember the tv show 'the black and white minstral show'?.. we thought nowt about that at the time, but now its embarrassing to think we accepted this as 'normal'.

 

times change, we evolve (i hope), sometimes we go too far (ba ba black sheep), other times we get it right, reading the arguments i now do accept that gollywogs are offensive.

 

That's the whole problem I have Rob, the Gollywogg is a "thing" a sub-human, an "other".... Something easy to hate and ridicule and laugh at and infantilise. Kids pointing and laughing and saying "oh, look at the nice Gollywog"..... I actually uttered the words "Gollywog, Gollywog" to a black kid in MY Primary school class in 1978, because I knew no better... I feel utterly ashamed and mortified of that looking back... This is why I feel absolutely NO nostalgia for these vile "dolls" and why I am so vehement in my arguements against people who actually see no harm in these things...... <_<

Perhaps we'll be know as the Flesh breed in future.

 

How about we just call ourselves "human beings"...?? There's a radical thought, whaddya think....??

 

Actually, David Cronenberg came up with a good name in his film "Videodrome" - The New Flesh.... :lol: I like it.....

hmm... thinking about it, a 'gollywog' is clearly an offensive caricature, 'golly' being a term of surprise, 'wog' being an offensive term towards black people... look at it, a startled black person.

 

i dont think that when i grew up with it i thought anything of it. it was just a 'thing' on a marmalade jar. however the term WAS used as a term of racial abuse towards blacks at school in the early 70's..

 

just because we grew up with this image doesnt make it right.... i mean, anyone else remember the tv show 'the black and white minstral show'?.. we thought nowt about that at the time, but now its embarrassing to think we accepted this as 'normal'.

 

times change, we evolve (i hope), sometimes we go too far (ba ba black sheep), other times we get it right, reading the arguments i now do accept that gollywogs are offensive.

 

how very patronisingly white middle class of you!!

 

 

 

well like I said they don't offend my black friend - if he isn't offended why should I be.

 

Am getting sick of being told what I should think! I have a brain and am able to use it to make considered decisions.

 

Just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't make them wrong.

 

. The "Perspectives" Forum is here for people willing to take the effort to read between the lines and make an informed opinion, but if you aint gonna do that...... I even made it incredibly simple for people too, I used a Wikipedia link; I could very easily have put up the names of Post-Colonial Historians, or found articles by Caribbean intellectuals and radical writers, but I thought those two things would've been going a bit too overboard for most to take in...

 

You patronising intellectual snob!!!!

 

maybe if you could participate in a "discussion" without the use of the f-word or blaming the tories I could take your opinions slightly more seriously!

I find the fact that you agree with a vile, right-wing, homophobic, borderline racist, Catholic fanatic to be incredibly disturbing to be honest mate.... This woman is spouting the most offensive garbage imaginable, and it's totally innacurate as well... For a start, I'm PAID for my work (not forced into slavery on a Plantation..), I've not been dragged from my bed in the middle of the night, been clapped in leg irons and chains, bundled aboard a slave ship and sent off halfway around the sodding globe, I've not been harrassed, denied a job or been bullied at work for the colour of my skin in my life, EVER... So to even compare my existence as a white person in the 21st Century to a negro slave in the 18th Century is downright WRONG and utterly OFFENSIVE.... <_< <_< Absolute fukkin' garbage this woman spouts in unbelievable, no wonder nobody voted for her in Tory Party leadership contests...

 

There is real Slavery existing in this country mate, it exists in the underground sex industry - young girls from Eastern Europe basically abducted and sold into sexual slavery ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES.... You wanna talk about who the n*****rs in the UK of 2007 are....?? It sure as hell aint you bloody white, middle class ENGLISH MALES that's for fukkin' sure....... <_< <_<

 

John Lennon was FAR more accurate when he said "Woman is the N*****r of the world"... Certainly more accurate than that sh!t-spouting, ignorant Tory bint..... I mean, apart from anything else - what about the "hard working, tax-paying Scottish/Welsh/Irish person" then...? Fukkin' typical England-centric Tory tw@t..... <_< <_<

 

Well Done, for falling, hook line & sinker for my clearly sarcistic post.

 

You really should know by now that I am a Labour supporter and the kiss off of me quoting Ann Widdecombe should have given the game away in bold capitals for you. But oh no, you have completely ignored my devils advocate post and waded in.

 

The whole point of my post was to show how ridiculous and politically correct it is to object to a toy. And your reply to my post proves it.

 

It is typical patronising do-goodism to make you feel better (It reminds me of the 1980s anti-apartheid political activists who went after South African born athlete with a UK passport of convenience Zola Budd instead of more credible targets like when South African ministers visited Margaret Thatcher), but hey to hell with the ugly racism that still exists in most southern states of the World's most dominant economy (that thinks it has a god damn right to tell the world how to run their government administrations and invades those weak enough that it thinks it can control), including the state that the idiot President of America comes from, forget about the fact that Afro Caribbeans make up 18% of Americas prison population, yet 63% of all Prisoners executed in the good ole USA are Afro-Caribbeans. Lets go ban a bloody doll. Whoopee doo.

 

Don't you think it would be far more constructive to highlight and address real issues of racial prejudice, that really count in today's society then get worked up about a bloody toy?

 

However the term "Wogg" is indisputably racist. But then again that is why the toy is being rebranded in the 21st Century as the "Golly".