The Enid Blyton Society

While on the search for some Gollywogs I found this http://www.tourisminternet.com.au/chgolly4.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I'm not sure how true it is, but if it is 100% fact then all those silly people who have outlawed the poor old Golly for being a parody of black people are prove wrong. So there meh! to them

Although the similarity of Gollywogs to the black and white minstrel performers of the 1830s-1950s cannot be denied. Hmmmm?

Still, I love Gollywogs and have never associated them with black people, which is why I think the whole PC thing is stupid.

I have 2 Golly's I found at a British Shop here I plan to give them to my daughter along with all my books too. I understand what they are saying, but to me, it's a historical doll, and part of Blyton's world in her books.

LuvMyBlyton wrote: I understand what they are saying, but to me, it's a historical doll, and part of Blyton's world in her books.

I'm sooo tired of political correctness, aren't you too?

Successive "cleansings" forever pervert a book's unique character, not to mention the affront to his/her author.

And Enid has been such a martyr...

I like gollys, and below is a very informative website on their history.

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dbjgo3.htm

I think it interesting that EVERYONE over 30 knows what a golliwog is, but virtually no-one knows what a Dutch doll is, even though they started off as the lead characters.

Last year in the Ginger Pop shop I had a "lively" discussion with a 14 year old, who was the only person to take offence at my having golly pictures around the place. I tried to explain that they were no more human than a teddy, but she wasn't having it. Perhaps they are more like a telly-tubby, with human characteristics, but not themselves human.

For someone who DOES believe that Golly is human, how offensive is it that the good folk of Gollywog town are replaced by monkeys (of all things!)


I stock lots of postcards that depict old fashioned adverts, and it is amazing how often Golly is shown, and not just for jam. Ovaltine, germoline, Jacobs crackers & soap.

Golly was as omnipresent much loved toy for generations of children, and I believe that his friendly black face has helped make Britain the relatively welcoming multi-cultural place that it is

Best wishes

Viv

As an Indian, with rather brown skin, I must confess that I approach the topic of Golly with some trepidation. At the risk of offending some, Id like to state that Gollywogs (Golliwogs..?)have been as much a part of my happy memories as Moonface, Fatty or the twins at St. Clare. Id personally love to be allowed to treat the political agendas flirting with this name, with a certain degree of gentle contempt...
I believe that more often than not, circumstances dictate creativity, and if Enid Blyton, at a certain time and place, chose to create a character such as this, well, hurrah to her and hurrah to Golly. And down with political correctness! So if anyone wants to get rid of their old Golliwogs, you've got an eager collector in one dark-browned middle aged Indian man, whose heart is as white/ red/ brown and as full as any other Enid Blyton fan here!

Further to this, I have just finished Five Go Off To Camp for the nth time - and was intrigued by the line, "Down she (George)came, as black as a nigger with soot."

As I've not a recent edition of this book, I am wondering how this has been edited.

My guess would be "black as coal"?

moonraker wrote:As I've not a recent edition of this book, I am wondering how this has been edited.

My guess would be "black as coal"?

I've got two copies of this book. One is a very worn and battered H&S HB which is phrased as you say but the other is a PB from 1997 (with centenary cover). This one has been altered to:
"Down she came, as black as night with soot"

Does anyone else have copies from the years inbetween? I wonder when the change was made?

(Its on a page about 5 text pages from the end of the book to make it easier for people to check)

My Knight paperback (1970 printing, with a superb drawing of George and Timmy on the front) still has "as black as a nigger with soot."

Anita

I have just stumbled upon this website and I feel I have to offer a rather less conservative opinion. Some years ago, I spent quite a bit of time replacing gollywogs in the Noddy books with other characters.

We chose to do this NOT because we were removing an innocent, cuddly character but because we were removing a 'dirty' 'thieving' (Enid's words, not mine) character, dressed like a black man whose name was 'wog'.

If you cannot see racial overtones in these characters I am amazed.

Furthermore, I as a child, had a gollywog toy. I lived in Harlesden in London - a very racially diverse borough. Most of the kids on my street were black West-Indian. None of us equated the local BLACK KIDS with GOLLYs. By the time I was seven years old however, ALL the white adults had equated the GOLLYs with the BLACK KIDS - and they didn't use the word GOLLY, they used the word 'WOG'.

'Political correctness' was the driving force behind the Cosgrove Hall animation for Noddy including a friendly black character to increase the ethnic quota. Removal of the gollywogs is about not giving ammunition to bigots.

The origins of the Golly are of no consequence when the modern association is so unpleasant. A seven-year-old black child being called 'golly' or 'wog' does not need a history lesson from anyone on this forum.

Finally, NODDY13, I am glad that as an Indian you like Gollys. I wonder if you would feel the same should Asian people be portrayed in the media as thieves and muggers, the gollywog had light brown skin and been called 'GollyPaki'. Surely you can see how offensive that would be?

I apologise for using such direct language.

Hi Fleet,

Welcome to the Forum. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and it's because I'm aware that golliwogs do cause offence to some people that I discuss the issue with my children when they read Enid Blyton books featuring those characters. I explain that I personally view golliwogs as cheerful-looking, lovable dolls, but that some people see them as caricatures of black people. I also point out that Enid Blyton thought of golliwogs simply as nursery toys and that she used them in all innocence in her stories. Only a very few of her golliwogs are "dirty" and "thieving," by the way, as are a few teddy-bears, pale-coloured dolls, etc. (Why does no-one ever take offence at pale-coloured dolls, which are often a lot more like human caricatures than golliwogs, and say that they're offensive to caucasians?) Many of Enid Blyton's stories about nursery toys feature golliwogs who are kind, intelligent, quick-thinking, sensible and helpful. They appeal to young readers, who like them. I've noticed that, in Britain, golliwogs are now on sale once more in many shops and I'm sure that those children who own one love them to bits, just as I loved my own childhood golliwog. He was one of my family of toys. What's wrong with that?

Anita

Completely agreed, Anita - I couldn't have put it better myself!

(and thank you to Nigel for making me curious enough to stop working on my guestbook long enough to drop in tonight )

Hello Fleet, and welcome.

Fleet, you will have to be amazed, I'm afraid. I can (and never did as a child) see any racial overtones in these characters. I think it is all too fashionable these days to see overtones (and undertones, for that matter) in almost everything we see, read and hear.

It must be remembered that Enid wrote her first novel in 1926. That makes her works of historical significance. Yes, there are one or two phrases that, on reflection, should possibly be changed. The "I am a poor nigger" conversations in Mountain of Adventure and the original names of the Three Golliwogs, for example.

It is also important to remember that, while we adults in the Society have a cosy nostalgic love of the books; such is Enid Blyton's never-ending appeal that today's children still love her stories. They don't share our nostalgia, so there is a case for maybe removing the more potentially offensive material. Nevertheless, I am possibly being too careful here, as I am sure that children will realise that they are reading the work of a writer from the 1920s onwards, when things were very much different in Britain than today.

It must be a testimonial to Enid's writing that here we are, nearly one hundred years on, being concerned that today's children will not realise that they are reading what amounts to be historical novels!

Enid's villains are universal. Pixies, Golliwogs, men from Eastern Europe, South American, all colours, even white, British people! Likewise, her heroes and heroines are from all races, real and imaginery.

Finally, Fleet, you are making the (incorrect) assumption that Golliwogs in Enid's stories are supposed to refer to black people. Your illustration to Noddy13's comments are frankly, quite absurd. The Golliwog of Enid's stories is quite simply, nothing more nor less than a nursery toy.

I am pleased to see some thoughtful replies. I love a debate!

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Enid Blyton herself was using the gollywogs as a vehicle for racism - she certainly was not.

I discussed this with Gillian Baverstock on many occasions during the course of my work. Gillian was of the same view as yourselves. I am fully aware that she and Enid saw them only as innocent toy figures. My problem is that, alas, adults cannot be trusted to use them only as innocent toy figures also.

There is often a suggestion from 'anti-golly' people that anyone who loves their gollywog toys must be racist - this is the kind of polarising rubbish that means very often intelligent debate is stiffled by prejudice and name-calling - they are not.

However, this is where our opinions seem to part company:
Of course the majority of gollywogs in the stories are innocent. Perhaps it is the few instances of thieving and references to them as 'dirty' that have been the problem as the grown-ups use these characters as vehicles of ridicule and insult. It's not absurd - I have been there.

We are all on this site as people with an interest in, and a nostalgia for, our childhood are we not? Perhaps the people using this website have been lucky enough to hold on to some of their own childhood innocence with regard to the gollywog - that's no bad thing. In fact, I wish that everyone in society would do the same. I just feel that until such time, they cannot be trusted (the grown-ups that is, not the gollys!).

Hi Fleet,

It's interesting to hear that you made alterations to the books in consultation with Gillian Baverstock. I believe that golliwogs began to be removed from Enid Blyton books around 1987. Do you happen to know whether golliwogs were removed from the work of other authors at the same time? Also, were you advised to make any other changes to the texts? I ask because we've come across some changes to texts which seem difficult to understand, eg. in the late 1960s or early 1970s the hair colour of Elizabeth Allen (main character in the "Naughtiest Girl" series) was altered from brown to fair. And, in the current Egmont editions of the "Faraway Tree" stories, brownies have become elves and elves have become fairies! We've had a good deal of discussion about that kind of thing on this Forum (I think the main thread titles are something like "Text Modifications in Egmont Editions" and "Food in the Books" - both listed under THE BOOKS - in case you're interested.) When you worked on the Noddy books, were you given a specific list of "no-nos" to look out for and alter? Sorry to ask so many questions but this subject is of great interest to fans.

Anita

Hello Fleet

I understand that WOG stands for "Wiley Oriental Gentleman" and is an insult to Asians, and not Africans.

The Golliwog was a made up name for a black rag toy. Here in the UK, where we have never had slavery of black people (except in very recent times - only slavery of whites 600+ years ago) it became a much loved nursey favourite. You only have to look at the way it was used to advertise everything from Germoline to Ovaltine, Cream Crackers to marmalade to see that he was at the heart of family values.

I believe that the gollywog is no more human than a teddy bear. If you do believe that golly is a representation of a human, and then choose to replace him with a monkey, I find that very racist.

It is not those who loved their golliwogs who went on to join the BNP, NF etc, but writing him out of literature is giving in to these people. As one who has suffered racism, believe me, these idiots don't need a golly to be unpleasant.

Someone in my shop was heard to comment that in her day it was frowned upon for a white women to have a relationship with a black man, but fine for a girl to go to bed with her golly. I wonder, has golly been a part of social change for the good, making Britain the relatively tolerant country it is today?

Best wishes

Viv