If You Could Live In Another Decade,...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Is the Golly offensive?
171 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/6l6cwjc
Is the Golly offensive enough to cause two Prospective Tory councillors to quit, or are they victims of political correctness?
Please do not just condemn them just because they are Tories, please just debate the Golly issue.
Is the Golly offensive enough to cause two Prospective Tory councillors to quit, or are they victims of political correctness?
Please do not just condemn them just because they are Tories, please just debate the Golly issue.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Is the Golly offensive? To me no - but I was a child in the 1950's and i remember my Noddy books had the Gollys as the villains, and at about six, that seemed fine but ...
times do move on, so it's no use harking back to 'what we had then ...' with rosy specs on.
The image is of a blackface - which is largely seen as offensive in this day and age, and it's no use banging on about how 'over-sensitive' people are being, that's the way it is perceived these days, and it is a negative image of black people.
I think being deliberately provocative under the guise of stimulating a debate is really rather facile, and demonstrates more of a need for attention, than a debate about ethics.
The debate is almost as old as gollies themselves, and it really has not solution.
This couple offended their political party, and have resigned, with much fuss and hoo-ha, but really they are hoist by their own petard - they looked for attention - and they got it. To assume that receiving attention when saught in this way is always going to be benign and supportive is really rather naiive.
times do move on, so it's no use harking back to 'what we had then ...' with rosy specs on.
The image is of a blackface - which is largely seen as offensive in this day and age, and it's no use banging on about how 'over-sensitive' people are being, that's the way it is perceived these days, and it is a negative image of black people.
I think being deliberately provocative under the guise of stimulating a debate is really rather facile, and demonstrates more of a need for attention, than a debate about ethics.
The debate is almost as old as gollies themselves, and it really has not solution.
This couple offended their political party, and have resigned, with much fuss and hoo-ha, but really they are hoist by their own petard - they looked for attention - and they got it. To assume that receiving attention when saught in this way is always going to be benign and supportive is really rather naiive.
From the net wiki
There are differing versions of how the word "Golliwog" came into existence. One story is when the British soldiers were in Egypt in the 19th century, the Egyptian laborers working for the British Army were required to wear armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. indicating they were Working On Government Service and these laborers were called Ghuls (غول), an Arabic word for ghost, by the British soldiers. Children of the Egyptians played with rag dolls of black stuffed material and the British (soldiers) bought them as gifts and took them back to England with them. The dolls were called Ghuliwogs and this word later became Golliwog.
Another version, with some similarities but one difference is also of the Egyptian laborers wearing the armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. The British soldiers in hilarity began calling them "wogs;" they (the Egyptian laborers) in turn then called the soldiers "Ghuls" and from these two words came the word "ghulwog" which in turn became ghuliwog, golliwog.
Perhaps it was this that gave both Florence Upton and Enid Blyton the idea for the "Golliwog" character in their books.
There are differing versions of how the word "Golliwog" came into existence. One story is when the British soldiers were in Egypt in the 19th century, the Egyptian laborers working for the British Army were required to wear armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. indicating they were Working On Government Service and these laborers were called Ghuls (غول), an Arabic word for ghost, by the British soldiers. Children of the Egyptians played with rag dolls of black stuffed material and the British (soldiers) bought them as gifts and took them back to England with them. The dolls were called Ghuliwogs and this word later became Golliwog.
Another version, with some similarities but one difference is also of the Egyptian laborers wearing the armbands with the letters W.O.G.S. The British soldiers in hilarity began calling them "wogs;" they (the Egyptian laborers) in turn then called the soldiers "Ghuls" and from these two words came the word "ghulwog" which in turn became ghuliwog, golliwog.
Perhaps it was this that gave both Florence Upton and Enid Blyton the idea for the "Golliwog" character in their books.
This couple do not seem to have much political nounce. A childs doll is obviously not offensive, but using it in a political way for their anti-PC campaign, changes its meaning.
You cannot use it in a political campaign and maintain at the sametime that it is just an harmless toy.
And I would never vote for anyone with the stupid christian nam 'Star'.
You cannot use it in a political campaign and maintain at the sametime that it is just an harmless toy.
And I would never vote for anyone with the stupid christian nam 'Star'.
Golliwogs were very popular in my day and I bought one for my own daughter, she loved it and in all innocence they were never seen as black people, just toys. I for one am fed up about this PC nonsense. I suspect the reason the two candidates have been dismissed is their very public stance against political correctness, along the image of gollies. This must have been done without permission of the Tory Central Office, (or whatever), and deemed too politically sensitive to handle without debate. Good luck to them I understand one of them is joining UKIP instead.
Could this couple pose with these dolls. Is there a difference?
http://thesocietypage...files/2008/05/14.jpeg
http://thesocietypage...files/2008/05/14.jpeg
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.