By golly! Eskimo debate moves on to gollywogs

25 Apr 2009 09:54p.m.

Harvey Peters wrote:

"You are as white as a milk bottle" ban them......ban them now....

25 Apr 2009 03:49p.m.

David wrote:

You want to solve the P.C. problem? Stop taking what others think of you seriously. If they liken you to a perceived racial stereotype then it's due their own small-mindedness and ignorance. It's the fear of difference that arises from personal insecurity that breeds racism, not 'Golliwog' dolls.

24 Apr 2009 11:45p.m.

Guy Smiley wrote:

A: This website needs more comments from the likes of you. Too many mouth-breating retards and not enough intelligent discourse.

24 Apr 2009 11:17p.m.

A wrote:

I must confess to finding this comments thread quite funny - initially I was aghast at some of the "not our culture" and "go back where you came from" lines, but then they went through the wall into self-caricature.

It started with the person who thought that it wasn't a recist gesture when they met someone who had a prominent swastika tattoo.

Then I noticed the semi-literate individual who was threatening to home-school their child because NZ was too PC-

- and another person who reached the astonishing conclusion that if a golliwog is racist, then maybe Barbie should be criticised for giving children body-image issues (um, yes, but that's an entire other campaign. Is this an embryonic state of sociological awareness?).

The one that had me on the floor laughing was the statement that golliwogs aren't racist BECAUSE the doll was based on a book which was "inspired by a blackface minstrel doll" !!! Let's look at "black minstrel shows": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show#Black_minstrels

Game, set, match, no considerate human being should argue it's "just a doll".

24 Apr 2009 07:55p.m.

Mark wrote:

Isn’t the point here weather or not the doll is an offensive object?

The derogatory term “Golliwog” isn’t used for it anymore, so then is the term “Gollies” offensive? If it was just called something like “Mr. Happy”, would that be offensive? Though judging from what Desmond said in the interview it wasn’t, as he referred to the doll as a representation of a “Picaninny”.

Therefore I’m assuming it mainly the image of the doll itself that offends? If it was made from a different coloured material would that be ok, or maybe just the colour of its hair, or a slightly different shaped body? If the doll was called a “Golliwog” and was made to look exactly the same, but used green material instead of black would it still be offensive? How much would it need to be changed to be acceptable and who decides?

Are the “Gollies” meant to be offensive to people, or are they just dolls meant for children’s enjoyment? Do they cause people to think badly about, or behave badly to others?

24 Apr 2009 12:44p.m.

Desmond wrote:

Thank for your support on this issue. It just boils down to the question, "What do you represent?" John, Venus, Juju (especially Juju) and Michelle should give those of you who support this. Although you know where it comes, some of you still want to support this "image" rather then investigate, learn, and empathize. There was a story on last night on another station that interviewed a former US KKK member here in NZ. He said "Racism is like a cancer and should be cut out". He also mention NZ Pride, a neo-nazi group here in this country....and membership is up....way up. When I saw this interview it showed other KKK members in interviews telling the camera how they really felt about "niggers". If you can watch just one hour of KKK/nazi interviews on their opinions...and then decide. Is this what I want to be associated with?? Even a little?

Ask yourself....who do I support? Do you really want your society to be associated with this image.

As much as some of you like Bacack Obama....what would you say to him...because he would feel exactly the same as I do.

24 Apr 2009 10:45a.m.

Thomas wrote:

Venus

"Thomas' points are excuses. Only simple minded excuses that lazy minded and fuzzy thinking people use, when they are beligerent and close minded"

I'm sorry but what? It seems like you totally agree with me

24 Apr 2009 10:26a.m.

tom wrote:

Congrats to Juju!! You see the real issue here. This harkens back to colonial days, though there were other forms of control in place at that time. Now ignorant people of the former colonising groups have only their language as a weapon to try to keep themselves propped up - albeit artificially.

Hopefully some NZers will listen to your voice and that of Seeka"s, and begin to raise their gaze and see the rest of the world for what it is.

24 Apr 2009 09:14a.m.

Juju wrote:

Of course its effing racist. And the majority of people who voted NO are most probably white. If you grew up like I did in places like little ol Dunedin being called nigger, sambo, spook, coon, coconut AND even GOLLYWOG by other kids then you will know what I am taking about. Dolls like this just reinforce their beliefs.

If you don't know whats its like to be a minority or marginalised then you cant really comment because you will never really know. As a person of colour - I find GOLLYWOG dolls to be offensive and racist which in my experience typifies NZ which has been described by some as a "dirty little country". At least with the Ozzies and Afrikaans they were open about being racist. Over here they do it subtly like making offensive dolls and confectionary.

And I agree with whomever made the comment that racist people wouldn't buy their kids a gollywog doll - Racist people people would be making them - ignorant people buy them.

This is not an isolated incident - remember the uproar of the first nations people in the USA challenging the American NFL team the Redskins - this crap has been going on for ages. Racisim as we all know is about power and control. Who has the power and control here in NZ ? well it aint the people of colour folks. Until that dynamic changes thats "our lot" and you should all expect that every now and again people of colour will get pissed off and stand up and challenge you when you allow these things to be made and accepted as being okay. Get over that !

24 Apr 2009 12:27a.m.

Venus wrote:

Thomas' points are excuses. Only simple minded excuses that lazy minded and fuzzy thinking people use, when they are beligerent and close minded. Isnt it about time that we all started thinking globally ? Industry, commerce, advertising even, is global now. We have to start thinking and feeling too, outside of our tiny little squares, because if we dont we or rather you guys will be left out and marginalised. Or is that why you all have such strong objections to the comments made so far from the young lady of Inuit decent and our Afro American Kiwi, because you are already feeling marginalised ? Or are you just being plain old pig headed. How can you not see that an offence taken by an Inuit from a thing which we eat, is valid ? And that an offence taken by an AfroAmerican to a stupid doll, is also valid? I fail to see why we Kiwi need this stuff, and I cannot understand why we tolerate it. Mostly I am dismayed at the numbers who defend our wanting and needing this rubbish, - as if it was so important to us that it had anything at all to do with our Culture. Eskimo Pies, those Eskimo lollies can be changed or they can vanish off the face of the earth for all I care. It wont make any difference to my life nor to my well being because I know who I am and I have a culture. I dont feel threatened by the loss of a lolly for goodness sake. If you do, then you need to grow up a wee bit, dont you think? The gollywogs still being produced in clean, green NZ is not only an insult to African Americans but it demeans us Kiwi too. I thought we had rid ourselves of the kind of thinking that depicted another race as a lower form or as second class. The gollywog is plainly a depictioion of a picaninny or a nigger, so if you do not find those words offensive then you have either a tough hide and are devoid of feeling or you have a lazy mind or you are just plain old dumb