If you had a gollywog in a charity shop in London I'm pretty sure it would raise eyebrows, to put it mildly.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,104
The BNP thrive off the freedom to sell gollywogs, don't they?
When I was in Cornwall they were everywhere, V strange.
Banning the selling of gollywogs would probably give them ammo.
I'm in Somerset right now, and the amount of golliwogs in charity shops probably does have some sort of relation to how questionable peoples' views are, now you mention it!
I worked in an Oxfam too, back when I lived in civilisation, and I don't remember seeing any then either.
Apparently these shops tried putting up "No Gollywogs" signs, but people got cross...
Quote: Lazzard @ December 10 2012, 6:17 PM GMTApparently these shops tried putting up "No Gollywogs" signs, but people got cross...
Anyone else confused by this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
"Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples"."
Seems an odd way to deal with it.
---
This is absolutely astonishing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677271
Prisoners not released at the end of their sentences. One inmate left in prison for 9 years after their sentence ended.
Come on it was one case, it might have been Hitler or Godwin.
Quote: Harridan @ December 11 2012, 1:55 PM GMTAnyone else confused by this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
"Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples"."
Seems an odd way to deal with it.
Me. If there is a rule that each Church/ Religious group must agree as a whole and Church of England/ Wales has said they don't then the law making it illegal seems a bit silly.
Quote: Harridan @ December 11 2012, 1:55 PM GMTAnyone else confused by this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
Not really. Let's change it from gay marriage to re-introducing smoking in pubs. JD Weatherspoons says it's totally against it and so refuses to opt-in to the new law and the Government backs off saying they respect Weatherspoon's right to not allow smoking.
However, smaller pub chains will allow smoking, so the law is still in effect, but just in fewer locations.
Quote: Pingl @ December 10 2012, 4:30 PM GMTI've noticed that, its weird isn't it. Why anyone would want one given its history and connotations is beyond me. Some people buy them just to be bloody minded, all the twaddle about its a toy and harmless fun, PC gone mad. No its a horrible and offensive toy and we need to move on and grow up. The name alone should be a clue as to why it is offensive.
Wog possibly derives from golliwog, rather than vice versa, but even that is uncertain - wog tended to be used more for olive skinned races. The original golliwog was a sympathetic, even heroic, character in a children's book. The depiction, and the dolls that followed, seem to owe more to the black face minstrel tradition than to any direct attempt to create a negro character. Enid Blyton is often cited as the source of negative connotations surrounding golliwogs, but for those of my generation the golliwog was familiar as a promotional figure for Robertson's jam, and had only positive connotations. I recall sending off the coupons to collect all the figurines in a golliwog jazz band, which rather reinforces the connection with the black-faced minstrel tradition.
The black-faced minstrel tradition is of course notably controversial. Its origins, certainly in England, go back centuries, and some Morris (i.e. Moorish) dancers still perform in blackface. The American manifestation undoubtedly reinforced stereotypes, though not entirely negative ones, but it also played a part in cultural cross-fertilisation, and therefore ultimately in changing attitudes. Those familiar only with the pasteurised Black & White Minstrel show will not be aware of what a vibrant cultural tradition blackface was in the late 1800s and early 1900s, or how important it was in the development of popular music.
The demonisation of the golliwog is something of a cultural oversimplification. Perhaps some black people do find it offensive, but are they right to do so? In the use of racially offensive language the law, quite correctly, requires that in order to be an offence there must be an intention to offend. I would consider that the the golliwog, of itself, represents no such intent.
If you think your well-argued, historically accurate summation of the background to this issue is any sort of counter-arguement to the populist knee-jerk reaction, you've got another think coming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677515
Now you know I was going to highlight this story. The UK now has 7.5 million residents not born in the UK. The number of white British in London is down to 45%. More then half the population rise in the UK was due to migration. Muslims make up 4.8% of the population. 4.8 million hold a foreign passport.
It's a multi-cultural jamboree folks!
Quote: Lazzard @ December 11 2012, 2:36 PM GMTIf you think your well-argued, historically accurate summation of the background to this issue is any sort of counter-arguement to the populist knee-jerk reaction, you've got another think coming.
Hang on isn't the black face of Morris Dancing an ancient joke mocking the slaves being transported through ports such as Bristol? Where they would be forced out on deck to dance so as not to be completely unhealthy and useless at their final destination.
So basically you're defending one set of racist paradgims, because it was inspired by a diferent set of racial paradigms?