[Mr Harp]

@blossom. wrote:

@Mr Harp wrote:

@kent f OBE wrote:

Whats with the knickers in a twist? We dont live in an ideal world…..this is a message board and we can give different opinions….some seem to have problems with it because meaybe they are too childish to have a reasonable debate?
Whats wrong with Barbie anyway?…Took me ages to look like her…just waiting for my ken

Another cryptic post that totally contradicts itself. Are you a troll Kenty?

:? =D> :lol:

Thanks Blossom I thought I was imagining it.

:lol:

[Mr Harp]

@kent f OBE wrote:

Whats with the knickers in a twist? We dont live in an ideal world…..this is a message board and we can give different opinions….some seem to have problems with it because meaybe they are too childish to have a reasonable debate?
Whats wrong with Barbie anyway?…Took me ages to look like her…just waiting for my ken

Another cryptic post that totally contradicts itself. Are you a troll Kenty?

[Mr Harp]

@blossom. wrote:

:roll:

Maybe we should ban them too.

2015 and daily newspapers still have pictures of young women in their teens, or barely out of their teens, exposing their breasts for men. That’s the UK for you. Good luck changing anything.

:shock:

[Mr Harp]

@blossom. wrote:

I’ve never seen anything but a doll in a golliwog….and never will.

Shall we start a thread on Barbie dolls next (or even one on a Sindy or a Bild Lilli) , as they apparently represent (or used to), the female ideal ?

Wonder what people’s thoughts on that would be.

We could have a good debate regarding how the media and the film industry sexualize women and girls. Barbie being a prime example. Brainwashed from childhood to look a certain way. Interesting story in the Guardian about how women only get a 3rd of speaking parts in movies.

Same argument different subject.

:lol:

[Mr Harp]

@kent f OBE wrote:

No Harpy (may I call you that now you have settled in?)
Your comment got me thinking, and I you are right….to really feel how others would feel, your example was bang on….very similar to walking in someone elses shoes
As for Sceppy pooh…hes big and ugly enough to make his own comments :lol:

Kenty one of my neighbours is quite old, she has golliwog fridge magnets and dolls and uses language about our Asian neighbours that is quite offensive but she is a product of her society and the 50’s and 60’s. I don’t even blink these days I am so used to it and she wouldn’t understand anyway.

I think UK society still demonizes those it deems alien, Muslims being a prime example currently.

Thanks for the compliment though.

:wink:

[Mr Harp]

@kent f OBE wrote:

@sceptical guy wrote:

an interesting discussion, with good posts from Ms K, Wanda and Mr Harp.

Do you know if any Asian/black groups think that the use of gollies is racist, and if so why?.

Ms K, as a fully paid-up member of the Gillingham KKK (does her bum look big in this bed-sheet?), doesn’t seem to be sure.

I don’t think the actual doll is offensive…..the part name of it certainly is….the 2 are associated therefore it’s understandable it is seen as racist….
I’m sorry Lucy I see your point of the origin of the word but you yourself had to google it …..no excuse to continue to use the word ….not that you have said it’s acceptable to continue to use it I know….we have new words in our dictionary all the time ….old words should also become obselete ….
Mr harp you use examples like walking around certain places wearing even a small badge of the golly…..that is where you have to think it’s wrong…knowing it offends a large community or race of people…..it’s wrong ….wrong if you feel we are all equal…..
That sign story about your dad actually brought a tear to my eye

Kenty I think you misread my post, or alternatively missed the point. I don’t feel UK society is equal, it isn’t. That was my point. As to my post to Mr Sceptical I was merely being dry, don’t read anything into it. I thought the debate would broaden out into a deeper discussion. It didn’t so… These debates never do do they.

:wink:

[Mr Harp]

@sceptical guy wrote:

the fate of my brooch turns on the outcome of this debate!

You could just wear it while casually sauntering around places like St Paul’s, South London or Manningham in Bradford. I say that because I doubt you’ll find the answer here.

Good luck with that research.

:shock:

[Mr Harp]

@irish_lucy wrote:

It shows where the dolls came from and how they got their name – not racists at all.

So it is in the minds of people and easy to change if people were made aware that the name comes from a combination of Egyptian workers Arabic nickname was GHULS and the nickname WOGS which was on their arm bands which stood for Working On Government Service.

Just like the swastika – originally from Asia and a symbol of well-being – found in many architecture around the world – and throughout Britain.
Taken over by the Nazi’s and now seen as their sign. But none of the buildings have changed as they know it was before Hitler and if taken down now it gives power to racists, just like banning dolls today.

Kids only see racism when its shown to them, if they see dolls as dolls it will curb racism, if shown these are meant to be an insult, then those inclined that way will use it for that purpose.

Or alternatively-

Contrary to popular belief, this did not start off as a racist pejorative, but was an acronym dating from the British Raj in India used to Identify Indians working for the Government. The acronym stood for Working On Government Service and those who were employed in that role wore an armbands with the acronym WOGS written on it.

Now, however, the original meaning has now largely been forgotten and the four commonest uses of the word “wogs” are as follows:

1. A pejorative noun for people who are non-white or of mixed race;

2. A noun used by certain xenophobic British people to describe anyone who is not British e.g. “Wogs begin at Calais.”;

3. A noun used by narrow-minded, londoncemtric fvckwits to describe anyone who does not live in London;

4. A verb meaning to steal, “He wogs sandwiches off his mates.” means he steals sandwiches from his friends, and unpleasant racist inference that all non-white people are thieves;

Stolen from the Urban Dictionary and no I haven’t included all the various links.

[Mr Harp]

@sceptical guy wrote:

an interesting discussion, with good posts from Ms K, Wanda and Mr Harp.

Do you know if any Asian/black groups think that the use of gollies is racist, and if so why?.

Ms K, as a fully paid-up member of the Gillingham KKK (does her bum look big in this bed-sheet?), doesn’t seem to be sure.

It is interesting, maybe it’s also a generation thing. My neighbour, who is black and a lot younger than me, is far more offended by being told what is offensive or not by the PC brigade, that could be because of far less exposure to the racism that was abundant years ago. I do recall black friends being extremely offended in the 80’s before it became the issue it is today. I also think it is irrelevant what the dolls are called now because racists tainted the brand anyway.

Out of boredom I googled it and it was quite interesting. The original author described golliwogs as “a horrid sight, the blackest gnome”, and dolls made were rather grotesque to reflect that, over time their appearance was altered to the, if you like, cuddly images on the Jam jar.

My simple logic is, if a senior white manager wore a golliwog tie, or had a golliwog tea mug, at work today, I suspect his or her black colleagues would be extremely offended.

[Mr Harp]

@milkman of human kindness wrote:

sure they wont be as shocking as yours pro ira guy you still using that name you support a group that kills innocents rember that before you get on your high horse mr harp aka pro ira guy

Is this where you derail yet another thread, you needy little man. With your needy little tit for tat lies. Next time you post your racist bile at 2am, plssed. I will do a Blossom, screen shoot it and report you and secondly, post it on this board. This conversation is also over because I really do know how you crave attention.

:lol:

[Author]

Posts