Enid Blyton's daughters wanted the golliwog stuff removed as they didn't feel it was right to alienate a good proportion of the people who want to read Enid Blyton.
Bloody good on them.
The versions with golliwogs are still available for those who prefer it with. So there's really nothing to cry about.
Apparently one of her daughters says she was a great mum and the other says she was a terrible mum.
Re: golliwogs (now called a golly), they're coming back in shops etc. We used to collect them from the Golden Shred jars so we could get the badges! I had a golliwog, but I don't know where it went. I had a humpty-dumpty too. I expect fat people would be offended by that.
Quote: zooo @ August 21 2012, 12:40 PM BSTThe versions with golliwogs are still available for those who prefer it with. So there's really nothing to cry about.
Just as long as Punch is still beating his no good bitch wife with a baseball bat, then you can alter as much children's stuff as you want.
Quote: Joyce @ August 21 2012, 11:40 AM BSTMy objection is purely that stripping a set of children's books of anything remotely 'naughty' will not stop kids being kids.
Okay perhaps I should have known what was actually in it before putting my foot in. I don't believe there should be any censoring of any book. Even if there is racially insensitive language in it, it should still be put out and shown us the ugly thing it is and barred.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ August 21 2012, 12:26 PM BSTI think you're on very dangerous ground if you go back and alter works of literature in order to satisfy a current political agenda. It's akin to Muslims smashing up ancient tombs and mosques because they conflict with their beliefs.
Yes, let's do a re-make of the Dambusters, celebrating the British capacity to create weapons and the needless deaths of thousands of German civilians but don't call the dog the 'N' word, people will find that offensive.
I haven't seen the new Famous Five books, how are they doing on the old enforced diversity front - are any of them transgendered, gay, black, Islamic or handicapped - and if not, why not?
Taking things to the absurd extreme, again, RC.
I'm not suggesting we burn all copies of books that contain outdated racial terminology, but in new editions of books for children I do think that those words should be removed. Children don't necessarily understand the significance of the word 'nigger' or understand what is offensive about golliwog dolls, and if the children are reading unsupervised it is quite possible that those racial slurs might become a normalised part of their vocabulary. It also might make those books distressing to black children who want to read a classic children's story but don't want to be confronted with 1950s racist attitudes.
I don't support the alterations made to Huck Finn, because the racist language in that book is commenting on the nature of racism. Casual racism, however, is pretty repugnant now (to most of us) and there is no need to introduce children to it needlessly.
On a side note, one of my favourite films (Swing Time) happens to contain a blackface scene. It makes me squirm a little everytime I see it, but I accept that it was the 30s and it's a slightly misguided attempt at paying homage to a Bill Robinson rather than a way of laughing at black people. I don't let the kids watch it, though, as they might not be able to make the distinction.
I think it all boils down to the fact that a writer writes what they write. who's business is it to edit? When we talk about a specific writer, we will discuss what they wrote, their style and their language. If you want to read that book, then do it. If you think it might offend, don't.
Athiests might detest the Bible, but nobody has rewritten it (apart from me) and removed every occurrence of the word 'God'. We could find/replace it with 'Trevor'. We won't though, will we?
Quote: Harridan @ August 21 2012, 12:52 PM BSTI don't support the alterations made to Huck Finn, because the racist language in that book is commenting on the nature of racism. Casual racism, however, is pretty repugnant now (to most of us) and there is no need to introduce children to it needlessly.
Except I wasn't being absurd. Absurd is forming a dance act made up entirely of young, black, British males from London and calling it 'Diversity'.
As you've pointed out with the Mark Twain stories, where do you draw the line? But I concede, that as long as both variants of the literature are still available, then needlessly imposing casual racism on children is a bad thing.
Quote: Joyce @ August 21 2012, 1:01 PM BSTI think it all boils down to the fact that a writer writes what they write. who's business is it to edit? When we talk about a specific writer, we will discuss what they wrote, their style and their language. If you want to read that book, then do it. If you think it might offend, don't.
Athiests might detest the Bible, but nobody has rewritten it (apart from me) and removed every occurrence of the word 'God'. We could find/replace it with 'Trevor'. We won't though, will we?
I think that there is a very big difference in books for adults and books for children. Children don't have as much autonomy over what they read - in general, children's books are written by adults, published by adults and bought by adults for the children. Children also learn more from imitation than adults do, so I can read the words 'negroes' and 'savages' 10 times a page (as I am in Robinson Crusoe) without starting to refer to people as negroes or savages, while a child might not be able to make that judgement.
Also, an Agatha Christie book has been edited in that way. "And then there were none" used to be called "Ten Little Niggers".
I loved my Gollywog and my Blackie doll, read all the 'racist' books as a kid but favoured my brown friends? Yes, I saved the labels to collect all the 'Golly' badges.
Always liked brown eyes and thick wavy hair, mine is fine so can't have 'rasta platts'. I know it sounds ridiculous but there are many characteristic 'black' attributes that I admire.
Just wonder how many of our chums on here are of ethic persuasion?
Quote: chipolata @ August 21 2012, 1:16 PM BSTchildren who read aren't the children we have to worry about. Ninety percent of the grubs can't or won't read, and they cause far more trouble to society than the speccy gits who can and do read.
Nonsense. Most children can read, and do. But just like adults they are easily distracted by TV, internet and computer games.
Quote: Harridan @ August 21 2012, 1:18 PM BSTNonsense. Most children can read, and do.
Maybe in Middle Class World. I'm thinking of the lumpen poorly-educated unwashed X-Factor watching majority.
Quote: chipolata @ August 21 2012, 1:16 PM BSTand they cause far more trouble to society than the speccy gits who can and do read.
Except they don't, introverted loners with no mates who read too much are the exact profile for most mass shooters / celebrity assassins. I think all speccy gits should be tagged and monitored by the state.
Quote: chipolata @ August 21 2012, 1:20 PM BSTMaybe in Middle Class World. I'm thinking of the lumpen poorly-educated unwashed X-Factor watching majority.
Don't blame the children for the bad habits of their parents. If they are unwashed and poorly-educated it isn't remotely their fault.
Quote: Harridan @ August 21 2012, 1:22 PM BSTDon't blame the children for the bad habits of their parents.
I blame the little f**kers entirely.
Quote: Harridan @ August 21 2012, 1:11 PM BSTI think that there is a very big difference in books for adults and books for children. Children don't have as much autonomy over what they read - in general, children's books are written by adults, published by adults and bought by adults for the children. Children also learn more from imitation than adults do, so I can read the words 'negroes' and 'savages' 10 times a page (as I am in Robinson Crusoe) without starting to refer to people as negroes or savages, while a child might not be able to make that judgement.
I agree. There is a definite age of maturity that allows children to decide for themselves what is there purely to be understood and what is there to inspire and encourage.
It was actually my boyfriend who wanted to download a Famous Five book on to his Kindle from Amazon that sparked my annoyance in the first place. He got cross and then, as often happens, so did I! I don't think my kids would want to read it. They're too busy reading new books that have been specifically written for children of their time.
I have a 100+ year old children's book...a massive thick William Shakespeare for children. Oh my God! This thing is even hard for ME to read! It was written for children of that time and would've been far too hard for my kids to read. It just shows that the writer assumed a certain intelligence of the target readers. What I'm saying is, through the years, children will lean towards books that appeal to them and they can relate to. Enid Blyton appeals to me because I lived those stories. My children are living something totally different!