[Mr Harp]

@minnie mouse wrote:

your post made me giggle arc thank u im still working out what shes typed lol :shock:

You need to work out what you type first. Abc.

[Mr Harp]

@moonshadow wrote:

@Mr Harp wrote:

Another excellent article from the Pulitzer Prize winning Guardian. The author a black woman describes eloquently why she personally finds golliwogs offensive.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/06/bbc-race-golliwog

:D

hres why I think gollwog is offencive.i went in to pats chat thinking swear b;astfran any thing I liked. Pound out the people in there are rampant racists. No onr will ver get the better of them,iv trid,Its a deep seeded predigest.

Excellent comment Moon, ‘white’ people don’t like having their ‘casual’ racism challenged. It is so ingrained in UK culture it is part of the national psyche.

[Mr Harp]

Another excellent article from the Pulitzer Prize winning Guardian. The author a black woman describes eloquently why she personally finds golliwogs offensive.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/06/bbc-race-golliwog

:D

[Mr Harp]

@sceptical guy wrote:

I did argue why – Boo was used as a counterpoint. Didn’t see the necessity for anything else.

I gave the reason I didn’t like The Guardian as a paper – I particularly dislike the Guardian mindset. I think I’m allowed to. If you want to discuss why, set up a thread, and I may respond to it. If you don’t want to discuss why, that’s fair enough – you’re not udner any compulsion, and I’m not going to use it as a reason to denounce you lol

If you think it’s about status on jc boards, you want your head examined for one reason.

There is no status on jc boards.

As Rab Nesbitt said of class in Govan, ‘there’s nae class in Govan’ :)

and there’s nae class on the jc boards

we’re all the same here – who we are in real life doesn’t matter, we’re all entitled to our views.

There are people here who are really wide of the mark in their comments (me among them at times), some are nasty, but that’s fine, that what the boards are.

Some are very arrogant, I guess I may be perceived by some as one of those, but strange as it may seem, so may you!

Doesn’t matter – we’re all actually equal in here. We have to fight our corner, or decide not to fight it.

:)

Glad I helped you out in showing you how life works….any time, Mr Harp! :)

Another odd rambling response. Written as if you are chatting to a four year old. Which merely reaffirms my suspicions about you in particular. Sticking to the main point though, you made an odd post that grandly informed everyone else what YOUR final conclusion is. Your evidence for that final conclusion was to name one other chatter.

As for JC boards not being run on “status”, another numptie who claims to be open minded and uses school yard language like “get your head examined”. As he grandly informs everyone else.

Why would you flippantly dismiss the views of everyone else, speak for everyone else, unless you assumed you had JC status, compared to to others? Which you clearly do.

[Mr Harp]

@sceptical guy wrote:

@Mr Harp wrote:

@sceptical guy wrote:

I’ve heard terms like blacklist and blackleg denounced as racist :roll:

The John Seymour article from the Guardian (a paper I really don’t like) quoted by Mr Harp is over the top – assuming that if any kids obtained a golly, they were being absorbed into the racist culture of the adult world.

Read Boo’s posts to see the answer to this – I admire Boo, she’s got real down-to-earth common sense amng other good qualities (waiting for the cheque early next week, please, Ms Boo).

I am genuinely unsure about gollies. They are associated with racism, but they do have a past associated with the innocent world of childhood. My golly brooch never once struck me as about black people, really!

The good thing about this thread, apart from its interest (thanks to Ms K) is that both sides dislike racism. That’s a very different mood form when I was young in the late medieval period, when racial feeling was pretty intense.

We’re all agreed that it’s a question of perception – our differences arise from how we understand that perception. 8)

Did you read the link? Or did your dislike of the Guardian cloud your view, so that when you did read it, your mind had already been made up beforehand anyway. That’s the impression I get. A strange statement to make actually.

Ironically you play right into the authors hand and the main thrust of his article, which clearly bypassed you. You flippantly, with no obvious logic, dismiss his view as “over the top”, a piece he had clearly researched, merely because your viewpoint does not match his. That in turn suggests it is not about “perception” at all.

You then importantly point out a definite answer amongst many other posts, when what you actually should have said is “I agree with so and so and this is my perception as well”.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, I actually read the link, and I disagreed with the argument that children were being integrated into a world of race.

I pointed to Boo’s comments to show why this isn’t necessarily the case.

I’ve no doubt that the author has researched his article. So what? The research was based on his values – so is almost all research.

Sorry for not liking the Guardian – it was a paper I gave up in 1973 because i felt its approach was misleading me – I never touched the Daily Torygraph, but when I occasionally peeped into its pages (other than grisly murder stories and explicit rape cases) I found it was similarly misinforming its readers. It took me a couple of years before I found a reliable paper.

I am allowed to disagree with the writer, I assume? and I am writing my own opinions and giving my own views on the post in question – not the ones you want me to write.

You’re free to tell me how I should phrase my views, and you’re free to laugh your head off when i don;t phrase them to what you think the thread should be about – but tough. That’s not the way jc works – or life, either. Sorry.

If I disagreed with an article I would attempt to argue why. You didn’t. You then oddly added you don’t like the Guardian without also giving a reason. Rather than beating about the bush I’ll tell you what my “perception” of your previous post was.

Some numpties on this site spend all their energy letting everyone else know on this site all their imagined JC status and those they also deem to have JC status. Petty point scoring. That is exactly how it read to me. My “perception” that is. Thanks for also letting me know how life works…

:lol:

[Mr Harp]

@sceptical guy wrote:

I’ve heard terms like blacklist and blackleg denounced as racist :roll:

The John Seymour article from the Guardian (a paper I really don’t like) quoted by Mr Harp is over the top – assuming that if any kids obtained a golly, they were being absorbed into the racist culture of the adult world.

Read Boo’s posts to see the answer to this – I admire Boo, she’s got real down-to-earth common sense amng other good qualities (waiting for the cheque early next week, please, Ms Boo).

I am genuinely unsure about gollies. They are associated with racism, but they do have a past associated with the innocent world of childhood. My golly brooch never once struck me as about black people, really!

The good thing about this thread, apart from its interest (thanks to Ms K) is that both sides dislike racism. That’s a very different mood form when I was young in the late medieval period, when racial feeling was pretty intense.

We’re all agreed that it’s a question of perception – our differences arise from how we understand that perception. 8)

Did you read the link? Or did your dislike of the Guardian cloud your view, so that when you did read it, your mind had already been made up beforehand anyway. That’s the impression I get. A strange statement to make actually.

Ironically you play right into the authors hand and the main thrust of his article, which clearly bypassed you. You flippantly, with no obvious logic, dismiss his view as “over the top”, a piece he had clearly researched, merely because your viewpoint does not match his. That in turn suggests it is not about “perception” at all.

You then importantly point out a definite answer amongst many other posts, when what you actually should have said is “I agree with so and so and this is my perception as well”.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Mr Harp]

Hello again Moon,

An interesting article in the Guardian which says far more eloquently than I could, what I was aiming at in my previous post to you. Read the full post to understand the context.

Btw Moon, keep smiling and don’t take the bait, some posters, persistently, aim your way.

:roll:

“Where does one begin? With the dog-whistling about “indigenous white people”? With the classic solipsistic implication that because he didn’t experience golliwog dolls as racist, no one else should either? Or with the invocation of childhood innocence, a typical strategy for avoiding historical reality by conjuring a past seemingly undisturbed by racism?

Perhaps it would be useful to discuss the tradition of dehumanising racist caricature to which these dolls belong. The English-American author Florence Upton invented the golliwog in a series of picture books produced at the onset of the Jim Crow laws, which mandated racial segregation in the American South. She described the character as “a horrid sight, the blackest gnome”. He was clothed in the same apparel as the black-faced minstrels then prevalent in Europe and North America. He had thick lips, unruly black hair, and his hands and feet were paws.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/golliwogs-vile-throwback-tory-mps

[Mr Harp]

@moonshadow wrote:

@boojangle wrote:

@moonshadow wrote:

@boojangle wrote:

When your kid comes home bleating that she cant clim the ladder lol
what you don’t get is people can be people withought hanging on to insulting .I can see the pitty right now in your doughters eyes,honest I don’t think your a gollywog.make fun of off

Pardon? Sorry Moon but I have no clue as to what point you are trying to make? What do ladders and pity have to do with gollies?

Your going to find out.I really don’t think your racist.Look at the doll though its a caricature of a black person.Its not funny and its in no way nice.Way down in the sub conscious your teaching your kids to disrespect other people.How di I know you were polis best friend.

Hello Moon,

Some ‘white’ people always have strong opinions on what ethnic minorities should be offended by or not, I would argue that is one of the many reasons why racism is so prevalent in the UK today. I was reading an interesting article about how negative images and key words reinforce negative stereotypes, the intent behind those images and key words is totally irrelevant and I agree the golliwog, in 2015, is a caricature and negative. It is all well and good suggesting not everyone with a golliwog is racist and I am sure that is correct, why though would those same people intentionally buy or own one, knowing and agreeing golliwogs can be deemed as offensive. Maybe because I live in an ethnically diverse area I am much more aware of issues such as this.

[Mr Harp]

@trapper wrote:

Its the context in which it’s used that’s become racist and as such can’t be undone

I absolutely agree with you. Which is why my in opinion is golliwogs are offensive. They immediately became offensive when “wog” was transformed into a derogatory, racist insult, with historical links to the British Empire and slavery.

[Mr Harp]

“However, the suggestion that she did not use an offensive term is frightening. At what point did comparing a black person to a doll, initially described by its creator as ‘a horrid sight, the blackest gnome’, become okay? Am I, and the countless black people that have been called Golliwogs and taken offence, just being bad sports?

Golliwogs were created during an era when the very people they caricatured were not granted the social status to be offended. Is the anti-PC brigade suggesting that we return to such an era? Do they themselves refer to their black friends and colleagues as Golliwogs?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4571288/Of-course-Golliwog-is-an-offensive-term.html

Trapper raises an interesting point. Do the majority (white) decide what is acceptable or not in multicultural UK 2015. That is my interpretation anyway. It is far to easy to blame a lack of awareness on political correctness gone mad and I would also argue ignorance and political correctness are two totally separate issues.

[Author]

Posts