Golliwogs/Gollies

[Courtenay]

But I do think, that the use of the words "English Freedom" in combination with the image of the golly was the reason the complaints about the advert were upheld.

Plus it also excludes the Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Irish and any others who aren't English but still consider themselves British — and who quite possibly like golliwogs too.

[Rob Houghton]

I certainly do agree about the 'English Freedom' aspect. Maybe that's because I don't really consider myself fully 'English' but more 'British' and I would have preferred the word 'British'. 'British' takes in not only Wales and Scotland of course, but every nationality who lives here, whereas the term 'English' used in this context is narrow-minded and divisive, in my opinion.

No one will ever get me to agree with them that golliwogs are racist however. I grew up with them, respected them, loved them, and played with them. They were some of my favourite toys.

[Carlotta King]

As John (Lucky Star) said: "They demand a ban on it without any consideration for those of us who like it." No one is forced to buy a golliwog if they don't like them, and if people do like them they shouldn't be prevented from buying one.

Thank you Anita. That is exactly what I said. Put them on sale and let those who want them buy them and those who don't can ignore them. You will not find golly supporters shouting at people who fail to buy one but you will very often find golly detractors shouting at those who do purchase one.

I agree. You can't ban everything just because some people don't like something, if we did that there would be nothing left in the world because there'll always be something that someone doesn't like!
If you don't like something no one is forcing you to look at it or buy it.
I find lots of things upsetting or not very nice but I don't call for them to be banned, I just ignore the things.

[Deej92]

I agree with both of you, Courtenay and Rob. In fact, without the words "English freedom" on the advert, I think the ASA might have decided not to uphold the complaint. This is what made the advert both provocative and political for me. I say political because of the words "English freedom" and the fact Viv is quoted as saying that people are scared to speak out about immigration through fear of being branded racist, and that therefore was one of the reasons for Brexit. If this had simply been an innocent advert advertising a tea towel with a golliwog, the outcome may have been different. The fact it wasn't is why the complaint was upheld for me.

[sixret]

I agree that English Freedom and golliwog in one shop will make me feel very uneasy. It conjures up the negative thought on Viv(although I'm sure she is absolutely no racist). British Freedom is more appropriate and definitely no negative thought will appear. I despise racists and racist comments. Having said that, I don't have a problem with golliwog. I read stories about golliwogs and I enjoyed reading them.

[Rob Houghton]

i agree. I also find it difficult to associate the image of a golliwog with an issue about immigration. I feel making links like that (as Viv apparently did) is misguided - especially since I have never associated golliwogs with immigrants. Doing so seems highly contentious to me.

[sixret]

I agree with both of you, Courtenay and Rob. In fact, without the words "English freedom" on the advert, I think the ASA might have decided not to uphold the complaint. This is what made the advert both provocative and political for me. I say political because of the words "English freedom" and the fact Viv is quoted as saying that people are scared to speak out about immigration through fear of being branded racist, and that therefore was one of the reasons for Brexit. If this had simply been an innocent advert advertising a tea towel with a golliwog, the outcome may have been different. The fact it wasn't is why the complaint was upheld for me.

You have written my exact thought! We will never know the real intention behind the advert but what has been written speaks volume.

[Courtenay]

I agree. You can't ban everything just because some people don't like something, if we did that there would be nothing left in the world because there'll always be something that someone doesn't like!
If you don't like something no one is forcing you to look at it or buy it.
I find lots of things upsetting or not very nice but I don't call for them to be banned, I just ignore the things.

About 20 years ago when I was in high school, there was an exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne of a controversial artist whose works included a photo of a crucifix immersed in urine. (I won't give its title here, as it was slightly rude.) There were a lot of people who got up in arms and were demanding that it be removed from display on account of it being offensive to Christians. I can't remember exactly, but I'm sure there were probably a few claiming that if it had been offensive to Muslims or Jews it would never have been allowed, so how come it was OK for the artist to get away with insulting Christians?! (These "PC debates" have been going on for a long time now, really.)

I followed the debate with some interest, being a fence-sitter in matters of faith at the time — I was an agnostic, so although I could understand why some people did find that artwork upsetting, and it wasn't exactly to my taste either, I took the same view that Cathy (Carlotta) here has just mentioned: "If you don't like something no-one is forcing you to look at it." The photo in question wasn't actually inciting violence or hatred against Christians. In fact, the artist himself, when questioned, said that his intention in making the picture was to symbolise the torture and ridicule and hatred Jesus was subjected to when he was crucified — which is part of the Biblical narrative, of course — not to insult Jesus himself or people who follow him! But I think that point was rather lost on a lot of the nay-sayers. I remember doing a little assignment on the whole controversy for RE class at school. Major religious debates aren't that common in Australia, so it was nice to have some good material to work with for a change!

Meanwhile, the whole kerfuffle ended quite suddenly after a few weeks when someone (whether a genuine religious fanatic or just a vandal looking for fun, I don't remember) got into the gallery and smashed up the glass over the controversial photograph, so it was taken off display permanently to protect it and prevent further incidents. So most people, whether they liked it, hated it or didn't care either way, didn't get to see it after all.

[Aussie Sue]

Oh dear, if you go into the guardian link that deej92 posted earlier and go to the comments at the bottom you will see this comment!!!

The problem with any discussion on golliwogs is that it seems to make it okay for people to make up stuff about Enid's golliwog stories: The comment below tell's us that Enid's golly's regularly bit people!!!!

Guardian Pick
But it isn't just a toy. Enid Blyton's Golly's (I cannot even bring myself to type the full name) regularly bit people. They were savage and 'unhuman'. I have seen them for sale in the Lake District and have complained about it. I have also seen those awful 'Mammy' dolls that are equally cringeworthy.

Just because a white person who isn't a racist owned a Golly, doesn't mean that they aren't offensive to black people. In fact, I doubt that most c…
Jump to comment
mancuniangeek
21 Sep 2012

[Courtenay]

Gosh-a-roonie, I can't remember a single Enid Blyton story in which a golliwog bit anyone!! It's stupid comments like that one that just perpetuate the myth that Enid was racist, as well as the idea that golliwogs are always offensive no matter what.

There are some Enid Blyton stories in which golliwogs are cheeky or naughty, but no more so than many of her teddies or dolls or other toy characters. The only Blyton story I'm aware of in which golliwogs are outright wicked is that infamous scene in Here Comes Noddy Again!, in which four of them mug Noddy and steal his car and his clothes in the dark dark wood. (And as I know we've discussed before, the shock of that scene comes from the fact that golliwogs are usually good or at least neutral in Enid's stories, which is why Noddy didn't see anything untoward in taking one as a passenger in the first place. Replacing them with goblins, as the modern PC version does, only makes Noddy look like a fool. )

On the other hand, in Enid's Amelia Jane stories and plenty of others, the golliwog tends to be a leader among the toys — I remember he's often shown making decisions, helping others who are in trouble and in general upholding good behaviour in the playroom. Even in The Wishing-Chair Again, a book that isn't primarily concerned with toys, when the children's toys fly away and need to be rescued, the leader of the mission is a wise and brave old golliwog who commands an army. But of course, in the newer versions he has to become a teddy bear instead.

Meanwhile, Enid never has a golliwog talk in pidgin English or act like he's a stupid lazy oaf or be a servant to the other toys, all of which WOULD be fair grounds for saying this was a racist portrayal. But there's none of that in any of her stories. How then can her golliwogs be teaching children that characters with black skin are bad or stupid or not to be trusted? I should have thought they did quite the opposite.

[Rob Houghton]

I keep saying it - but the ONLY people who taught me that golliwogs represented black people and were a sign of everything wicked and evil and lazy and nasty were 'PC Brigade' flag-wavers. I can't express it any other way.

I know it's got me into hot water on here before to dare to suggest that I wasn't a racist as a child - apparently all people who like golliwogs are racist - but I truly wasn't a racist and have only become aware of all the nasty connotations as an adult. I used to see black people as exactly the same as me as a child, and it was only due to the PC Brigade that I began to view other races as different to me. Of course, I've also become very aware that golliwogs look just like black people.

As for golliwogs biting people - what sort of EB books has that person read?! I only recall very few stories where biting was involved. One was, I think , a white child who had to learn it was bad to bite people. I can't even remember the name of the story, but it was definitely not about golliwogs.

Although I respect that other people hold different views to mine, I still find it incredibly difficult to see the objectionable qualities others apparently see in a harmless cloth doll.

[KEVP]

I said some time ago that perhaps what made Viv's tea towel "inappropriate" was putting the words "English Freedom" together with the Golly.

[sixret]

We are beginning to see why there have been an uproar. The combination of those two. Not golly alone.

[Deej92]

In relation to this subject, I can't find much to disagree with in this Guardian article.

This part stood out for me as pretty indefensible - "In her book Three Little Golliwogs (currently trading on eBay with the description “Banned, so bid fast!”), the characters Golly, Woggee and Nigger sing their favourite song, Ten Little Nigger Boys, which celebrates the death of 10 black children."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... anne-moore" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Anita Bensoussane]

In relation to this subject, I can't find much to disagree with in this Guardian article.

I can!

Suzanne Moore writes that her teenage daughter was "agitated" after seeing some "Jim Crow dolls" in a gift shop:

"They were golliwogs, part of my childhood, but not hers. She didn’t know the word and had never seen one. This is not down to that insane concept 'political correctness gone mad'. This is down to progress, where we tend to avoid giving children racist toys."

Note that it's taken for granted that golliwogs are racist caricatures and that people who don't see them in that way are unenlightened!

When questioned about the dolls, the shopkeeper said that "People love them, especially black people" but Suzanne Moore's daughter was "still outraged".

Why? Couldn't she understand that not everyone shared her opinion? A person who was truly enlightened would be able to accept that people view things differently.

"Every so often, some golliwog controversy comes to the fore. Some intrepid freedom-fighter insists on his or her right to sell golliwogs ('It’s just a doll!'). Anyone who takes offence at this is some loony-left zealot. It is especially good if the person who wants to sell golliwogs or dress up as one is themselves black or of mixed race. Rightwing papers excel in whittling out these oddballs. The latest is Viv Endecott..."

Poor Viv!

"A spokeswoman for the store [the Ginger Pop Shop] said the golliwog did not represent 'a negative racial stereotype' but was, in fact, a 'heroic and aspirational role model'. I have never met anyone who aspired to be a racist soft toy. Perhaps it’s just me."

It seems that Suzanne Moore is (deliberately?) misunderstanding the spokeswoman's words. Many of Enid Blyton's stories feature wise, kind, admirable gollies. Viv and her staff are right that young readers warm to such characters, look up to them and want to be like them. The article refers to a golly stealing Noddy's car. In fact, that particular story (Here Comes Noddy Again) involves several golliwogs mugging Noddy in a dark wood and driving off in his car. It's funny that that tale is cited so often by critics yet they fail to mention that the garage in Toyland is owned by the well-respected Mr. Golly, or that there are numerous positive portrayals of golliwogs in books as diverse as the Amelia Jane stories, the Wishing-Chair books and Five on a Treasure Island - plus of course assorted short stories. There are also gollies who are mean and selfish, but they don't dominate. As Enid Blyton herself said: "Golliwogs are merely lovable black toys, not Negroes. Teddy bears are also toys, but if there happens to be a naughty one in my books for younger children, this does not mean that I hate bears!"

"It is telling that those who are nostalgic for the time when everyone proudly displayed their golliwogs refuse to accept the history of these figures."

On the contrary, the best history of the golliwog I've come across is the video by "oddball" Viv!

"In her book Three Little Golliwogs (currently trading on eBay with the description 'Banned, so bid fast!'), the characters Golly, Woggee and Nigger sing their favourite song, Ten Little Nigger Boys, which celebrates the death of 10 black children."

Actually, the book is called The Three Golliwogs and the characters are Golly, Woggie and Nigger. The song 'Ten Little Nigger Boys' doesn't "celebrate the death of 10 black children" - it's an old "counting down" nursery rhyme like 'Ten Green Bottles'. It wouldn't be used today because of the associations of the word "nigger", but in Britain in Enid Blyton's era the word simply denoted "black" and was a popular name for black cats and dogs. Stockings and paint of a certain shade were called "nigger brown".

Like a few others here, I don't find the "English Freedom" tea-towel appealing (incidentally, one thing nobody has pointed out is that "parliamentary" is spelt wrongly as "parliamentry") so I won't be buying one. However, I'm not going to try to stop others obtaining one. That's the attitude I'd like to see people take regarding golliwogs!