Yak wrote: ↑03 Apr 2024, 01:25
I'll probably bow out of this one now because I don't think it's something that everyone will ever agree on but thanks for talking with me, all
I don't think we need to stop talking about a subject simply because we don't all agree on it (and probably never will). One thing that saddens me a lot is that within my lifetime (I was born in the early 1980s), mainly within the last decade or so, so much of our society seems to have forgotten that it's possible to disagree with others' opinions and yet understand why they take that view and even respect them for it —
without either side finding it necessary to enforce their own views and silence anyone who doesn't agree. I see that happening on both sides of politics and it is quite disturbing at times.
As a somewhat milder example — I hope Viv won't mind me bringing her into this again, but I recall reading somewhere, probably on the previous version of her website, that when she ran the Ginger Pop Shop, her policy was not to sell any pirate-themed books or toys or games, because to her, these things are glorifying criminality. (I hope I have that right, Viv, and my apologies if I'm mischaracterising your views at all.)
Now I personally disagree with that view. I grew up absolutely loving the pop culture version of pirates (Captain Pugwash, pirate-themed Lego, G&S's
The Pirates of Penzance, various computer games, and even writing pirate stories about our dog after she had an eye surgically removed!
) — and none of this resulted in me believing that piracy in real life is OK. I could tell the difference between fantasy and reality from pretty early on in my life, and I understood very well that while the fantasy versions of pirates might be fun and exciting, real-life pirates were and are dangerous criminals and not heroic or romantic at all.
But guess what? Although I don't agree with Viv's opinion on pirates, I can understand why someone would think that way, and I totally respect that stance and respect her as a person for coming to her own conclusions about it. If her shop (when it existed) didn't sell pirate-themed goods, well, there are plenty of other places that do. There's no way I would try to argue the shopkeeper, let alone force her, into stocking something that conflicts with her personal standards or beliefs.
And as far as I've seen, in turn, nobody's started a serious campaign to ban all pirate-themed goods on the grounds that they're a corrupting influence on society. That, too, would be unfair. But what if that idea took root big-time and people like me, and so many others, were informed that our love of the pop-culture version of pirates makes us accessories to crime, that it means we obviously have no moral compass whatsoever — and anyone selling or displaying pirate-themed books or movies or toys or games should be apprehended and fined and publicly disgraced and made to cease and desist?
Obviously that's an absurd scenario, to most of us at least. So why is it so very different with golliwogs, which until the late 20th century were mostly viewed in Britain as a harmless and wholesome and fun toy for children?
Now I can also understand why some people view golliwogs as offensive and racist. They
do look a lot like some of the nastier caricatures of black people that used to be common in 19th and 20th century (majority white) society. And if somebody decided to display a golliwog with a noose around its neck, or use gollies in other ways that were clearly part of a white supremacist campaign — and there are people and groups who've done that, sadly — well, that would be racist any way you slice it. But the people who do those things would be racists whether or not golliwogs existed.
And meanwhile, the vast majority of white people who grew up playing with and loving golliwogs — including me, and my mum, and probably millions of other British and Commonwealth citizens over the age of 35 or so — would most likely say that having this particular toy didn't teach us that dark-skinned people are ugly or stupid or dangerous and shouldn't be respected as our equals in society. Quite the opposite, in fact. (Viv's documentary on golliwogs points out something I didn't know before I watched it — that Hitler, in Nazi Germany, banned golliwogs and other dark-skinned toys precisely because they might encourage "Aryan" children to believe that these inferior races were their equals.)
To be fair, I as a very light-skinned person, in a society where the majority are light-skinned, have never experienced racism myself in any meaningful way. I'm not in a position to go around telling people of ethnic minorities ("whitesplaining" is the popular term) what "is" or "isn't" racist. But the facts are that some black people see golliwogs as offensive; some black people see them as positive, or at least harmless. ("Blacks", or "Asians", or any other ethnic or social group for that matter, aren't a hive mind, any more than "whites" are.)
And deeper research, like what Viv has done with her videos, shows that the whole history of this now-vilified toy is a lot more nuanced, and a heck of a lot more positive, than many of us would ever have guessed. And it's just a shame that the way much of society is at present, we can't hold a reasonable and respectful conversation about this and allow people to come to their own conclusions about golliwogs. When I was little, the general view was essentially: if you find them offensive, don't buy them, or don't stock them as a shop owner. Now, it's more like: THIS IS UNQUESTIONABLY RACIST AND EVIL AND THEREFORE ANYONE WHO IS NOT OFFENDED BY GOLLIWOGS MUST ALSO BE A RACIST AND A BIGOT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE SILENCED.
And I just think it's sad and disturbing that, at present, these polarising and divisive attitudes in this and other areas ("
we're right,
you're wrong, so that's that") seem to be so rife that we can't talk any more.
But on a daily basis, I no more think of my skin colour than my height 
