Talk:Golliwog

I'm 79 and had a golliwog as a small child, despite the fact that I have never found any racism in the 2 generations above me in my large family. It never struck me as a representation of a black person. 'Racism',ie discrimination against (or it could be'in favour of') someone of an (or it could be 'any') ethnicity other than one's own, never entered my head. There's so much confident ignorance now, about how in the 19th century their small proportion of 'the poor' mixed easily with the native (How dare I use that word?) poor, but were seen with even greater disgust by the middle and upper classes. My main point, though, is that the golliwog was part of a children's story book and not intended to belittle 'negroes'. Oh my! Another offensive word! Well, no. In my ancient childhood and for some time after, 'negro' was the correct term for someone of African ethnicity, whereas 'black' was derogatory. At the age of 9 or 10, I was on the top deck of a bus with my father and I pointed out of the window and said something (doubtlessly inoffensive) about a black man standing in the queue. After answering me, he said "He's not actually black, is he? He's dark brown. The correct way to describe him is as a negro. There are only small groups of people you could describe as black, and they don't live in Africa." Now, largely through US influence, 'negro' is no,no, and 'black' is ok. What idiocy. Secondly, not all people of negroid ethnicity object to golliwogs. About 30 years ago, I vividly recall a middle-aged (Sorry, I can't think of a less judgemental term) black woman on TV who was filmed waving a golliwog and protesting that she didn't see it as offensive. Her grandmother must have thought the same, because she gave it to her and her mother didn't object, so that must reflect opinion over 4 generations. I don't expect all this to appear in the article, but I do hope the article will be edited to include the points I have made. FitzmichaelFitzmichael (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Dolls moved to back of store

I was in Australia 2 weeks ago and there was a racist performance on a popular Australian TV show called "Hey Hey It's Saturday" resulted in a store moving golliwog dolls to the back of the shop ' This hit major prime time news. Interesting enough I watched a group of white Australian news broadcasters discussing the Golliwog dolls and all of them decided they were not racists. 99.228.81.122 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As an Australian, I'd like to say that golliwoggs are not deemed to be racist here, nor does dressing as a black person on stage carry the same historical signficance as it does in the US. The only reason why the event made news coverage is that one of the judges of the performance happened to be from the US and was offended. --- kajaesperanto

References

Noddy without Golliwog

Just saw the new Noddy books will have Golliwog removed. 99.228.81.122 (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Third picture

Im sorry, is it me or is this picture totally irrelevant? Wikipedia is not an excuse for you to show off your art on every article. You don't see people replacing photographs of Fidel Castro with a chalk + charcoal rendition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.186.26 (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree (no offense to the artist). Marcipangris (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the name of a plant

There's a plant used to feed pet rodents and parrots with which is called "Golliwoog" (or at least it's sold under that name in Germany: http://www.golliwoog.de/ 88.77.204.210 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Golliwogg

In the 1970s, Robertsons jams owned an executive aircraft - a Piper Navajo registration G-OLLI. I well remember this being flown at the Biggin Hill air fair. I even have some photos of it somewhere. The link below take you to a phot of a hotair ballon with the same registration.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cameron-Golly-31-SS/0705431&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=2&sok=WHERE__%28reg_like_%27G-OLLI%27%29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_desc_&prev_id=0772059&next_id=NEXTID —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.50.96 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - magnificent. I have downloaded it for posterity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.90.21 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be noted is that the golliwog is not a caricature of any old black person, but of a black slave. naturally it is offensive 2A01:CB08:634:DA00:DCF1:C168:74A0:3F0B (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm Australian. We never had the problems the US gave itself with black slaves and racism. We had golliwogs. In fact I know where I can still buy one today. Do you believe Australian golliwogs are racist? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with white dolls?

I find it slightly odd that a doll based on a caricature of a black person is considered, by some, to be offensive, yet a similar exaggerated white person doll, e,g. the He-Man, etc., figures, are not. I do wonder if black people are actually offended by things like Golliwogs or if it is just a perception. Does anyone know of a white person offended (in a racial way) by a white children's doll? I think this is relevant to the article as it seems to assume quite a degree of offensiveness. 212.166.137.73 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Golliwogs are dolls of blackface minstrels, which were white people with black facepaint who mocked black people for entertainment. This is part of the slave era, and golliwog dolls are really no better than dolls with KKK hoods and a burning cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.120.220 (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Very good point. I'm not sure why golliwoggs are deamed to be offensive. I had one as a child and never even associated my toy with black people, let alone associated it in a negative way.Grimerking (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish Gollywog

Totally Agree, im all for equality, and my wife and I have many black, asian and latino friends and they would agree too. Its a one sided blinded view that its only racist if its black, if it was a doll called ' Milky Joe' or something like that , how many complaints from white people do you think we would have? None i suspect. Its people who are waiting to jump on anything that remotely sounds un PC, and if you are famous, your doomed. (SM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.112.205 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to laugh at people during discussions like this who state that they don't see how it is racist or how it could be. It seems fairly obvious that none of them have ever bothered listening to the people offended by it. I am also amused by those who chip in with the traditional "I have black friends" routine. Good for you.

With regards to white dolls, I don't recall any ever being made as a pejorative parody of white people as a body, do you? HeMan, for instance is a highky muscled man, but the dolls don't appear to make an issue of his race or colour.. 80.43.22.25 (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

I think people need to take a second look at Irish gollywogs like Ronald McDonald. Totally politically incorrect. Almost as bad as the Irish peasant children Raggedy Ann and Andy. 76.230.191.137 (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

White people cannot be the victims of racism because racism has never been a pervasive system of oppression for them. Golliwoggs are just a small part of the institution of racism against Black people. So no, a White doll cannot be racist. (And anti-Irishism is something different.) DearPrudence (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition of "racism" that says it must be widespread and pervasive. Also, how is a doll "part of the institution of racism against Black people"? It's just a doll. It isn't denying anyone any rights or privileges. --75.92.61.32 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DearPrudence Im afraid you hold very racist views, especially the fact that you like to pretend that there has never been a pervasive system of oppression for them. I advise you to look up on Wikipedia some examples such as modern Africa, the Byzantime empire, the invasion of Spain by Muslims, Barbary corsairs, the Mongolian Empire and countless other examples and retract your statement. You are deeply racist to the point where you cannot even recognise that you are. Racism also has nothing to do with how pervasive it is, it is simply an act. EEEEEE1 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

DearPrudence "White people cannot be the victims of racism" - don't be silly dear.

"racism has never been a pervasive system of oppression for them" - a good start would be to read up on the examples given by EEEEEE1 above. PeterColdridge (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

ANYONE can be the victim of racism, but outside of Africa, this seems to be focussed on the darker skinned, with a gradation working upwards to white skinned.80.43.22.25 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Robertson's Golliwogs

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time... all this bandying about of words like "malicious" (which some stupid editor inserted into the wikipedia article.

Robertson's Golliwogs] It seems fairly obvious that Ms Thatcher's comment was not racial vilification. It was a comment on the appearance of that particular man. She commented that he reminded her of the golliwogs on the jars of jam she had as a child.

Now, why would she say a thing like that?

Was it to be nasty?

Or was it because the man himself has an overwhelmingly large grin, a mischeivous expression in his eyes, a little button nose and a general sense of merriment? Did she really use "golliwog" as an insult, or was she thinking more in terms of a cute little badge or a beloved soft toy?

Judge for yourself. [1] [2] [3]

One of the really stupid aspects of this is that Tsonga wouldn't be hurt or offended, if the person who repeated the comment had simply used some discretion. However insulting, or flippant it may have been, it was private, overheard, and didn't need passing on. Now we have a man who has good reaso tp believe he has been racially insulted, because the Beeb has acted as if he has been, Never mind that they sacked her. It doesn't remove the insult which was never intended to be one.

Tsonga is not of English background. He is French. He has probably never eaten Robertson's Marmalade, and unlike thousands of little black kids across England, has never collected those cute little black figures. How is he supposed to put it in perspective while the whole of English-speaking society is tut-tutting and finger-pointing in such a closed-minded way. How is he supposed to realise that the comment relates as much to his general sense of joi-de-vivre as it does to the colour of his skin? Amandajm (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Inadvertent historical distortion?

The Golliwog as "racist" insult section currently begins "After the publication of Upton's first book, the term "golliwogg" was used both as a reference to the children's toy and as a generic, racist term for blacks."

This doubtless well-meant sentence combines two usages under one time-expression, perhaps misleadingly. WRT the racist application, does "after" mean "immediately after" or, say, 5 decades after? Given the contentious nature of the subject, it would be useful to establish approximate dates of the earliest known examples of the epithet's perjorative use. (I myself have no idea of or stake in the answer.)

FWIW, I think it's indisputable that in the century-plus span since its coinage, the name/term has sometimes been used offensively by some people, that consequently some will inevitably perceive it as offensive, and that therefore it's prudent and polite not to apply it to anyone even without any malicious intent. Nonetheless, it's a falsification of history not to acknowledge that its application to toys and fictional characters has, in the context of the times, been mostly lacking in malicious racist intent. Many toys and much literature intended for small children involves a degree of exaggeration or caricature - is Miss Piggy offensive to white beauty queens? Since any 'bad' character in a story has to be something, his being a golliwog would only be racist if that characterisation of golliwogs were usual or frequent: to my recollection and on the evidence evinced in the article, that was not the case. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

chaotic first paragraph

I think the first paragraph of this article does not present all sides of the story, especially as it barely covers the racist nature of the golliwogg. There seems to be an undue emphasis on the golliwog as a 'nice toy', and not the historical & cultural significance. It is important to show more clearly & carefully that the golliwog means & meant in the past different things to different people.
I have been reading:http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/golliwog/
and:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/07/racism-race-golliwogs-offensive
Also it is not written like an encyclopedia. --79.78.249.252 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Chaotic

Nonsense! The first paragraph is not "chaotic". It states how the golliwog came into being. It was and is, first and foremost, a children's storybook character and a child's toy. That is what a golliwog is. That is it's history. For decades golliwogs were loved and cuddled and treasures by countless children.

The two references that you cite here are firstly [4] an article which cites all depictions of golliwogs as racist, including Robertson's Marmalade labels. The second reference, by a US journalist, acknowledges the "soft toy" character of the golliwog, as well as acknowledging that there are racist implications. He goes on to make a plea to see Thatcher's comment in a rational light.

I have added a paragraph about the use of "golliwog" as a racist term, to make the intro better reflect the substance of the entire article. It doesn't need to be in the first paragraph. The paragraphs deal with three different topics, and do so chronologically.

There is too mauch hysteria about this altogether. Go and read the Guardian article again [5].

Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

about the Jim Crow website

This site has been referrred to by the previous contributor as offering a position that ought to be taken into account at the present article.

The claims made at this page [6] are about as extreme as they can be. The page paints the ugliest-possible picture of the golliwog's (toy) appearance, describing it as being "half minstrel, half animal" and describing it as being "sometimes depicted with paws". What the author of this page seems to have forgotten entirely is that a golliwog was a form of rag doll and, as such, it was constructed like a rag doll. It conformed to all the limitations of a rag doll. Its hands had no fingers because they were made of black felt, in a single piece, probably with a line of stiching to indicate the division of the thumb. The hair suck out in an "unkempt" way because it was either made from strips of cut felt, or from black wool that became progressively frowsier as the toy was played with. The face was flat, because that's the way rag doll's faces are. It's skin was jet black because black felt is jet black. Rag dolls that represented white people were either snow white, or bright pink.

Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've come across the website via Wikipedia before and it seem to be a Black Supremacist/Whiney nonsence site if anything...

EVERYTHING "racist" from history is exaggerated to the EXTREME by the site, without any form of refrence or common-sence. And by that, I mean it's all basically made up tosh to make historic white out to all the ignorant, evil idiots.

Black childeren were apparently desexualised (Last I checked, tomboys were common in ages past etc etc.), and just because (black) childeren were depicted with animals, apparently that suggested they were the same as non-human animals. Again, last I checked, childeren have ALWAYS been shown to interact with animals and nature, especially in older literature.

Surely NO-ONE can read an article on that site and suggest it's not a propaganda machine.... --Kurtle (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Further comment

A deleted request has asked for someone to describe the difference between Ronald MacDonald and a golliwog. One represents a Minstrel entertainer, the other represents a clown. Rag dolls representing clowns are made and sold every day of the week. But golliwogs are not "politically correct"!

I am beginning to think that we ought to ban a great number of stories and objects that are icons of western society because they might offend someone. Let's start with everything that depicts obesity. Goodbye Santa Claus! Wait, let's extend that to the merely overweight- no more "cuddly" toys! The Teddy bear is gone for ever! Short stature? Well, goodbye Snow White, Tom Thumb, The Brave Little Tailor, Stuart Little, the Ewok and all the rest of them! Garden gnomes? Well, I worked with a man who looked exactly like a garden gnome, a miserable, perverse, evil-minded garden gnome, minus the red hat. I suggested to him that if he took up gardening, or built himself a little fishpond he might feel more cheerful, but he never did... Then there are tall people..... They must feel dreadfully offended by Jack and the beanstalk. And as for the Incredible Hulk with his bad case of bi-polar disorder, Shrek, Homer Simpson, and the dreaded Barbie Doll....well, I could go on all day.....

Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful article

I'm staying out of this debate :-) but this article might be a useful source on some of the history (albeit as the title suggests, it tends towards the "any mention is racist" POV) :

• Vallely, Paul (2009-02-06), "A repugnant caricature that should never be toyed with", The Independent
  

I suspect that punching the word into Google News at the moment should turn up a load of stuff written in the wake of the Thatcher affair. Incidentally that article states "It is not the "wog" bit which is the problem. Florence Kate Upton, who created the character in a children's book in 1895...The word wog was first recorded by lexicographers 30 years later, and as a word for Arabs rather than Africans." 86.10.11.202 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well written article. I thought that it was trying to strike a balance, despite the title. Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Golly Mollys

The line: "Exact woollen replicas of Golliwogs are widely available in Australia and New Zealand marketed as Golly Mollys. The shops are aware of the historic significance and this appears not to bother them." Is missing citation and the second sentence in that line does not seem neutral. What historical significance? This needs to be elaborated. Why would they shopkeepers be bothered by their own products? --Kaja

Racist or Not

Without knowing the racial makeup and history of people on t'interweb, has anyone every discussed this with any non whites as to whether THEY find it racist or not? I ask because personally I do, being mixed race, (like Pres. Obama who ISN'T black) and so do a number of other people I know, yet I am baffled by the number of people who don't get racist remarks and claim that they are not racist, when in fact the people on the receiving end don't appear to have their views considered all that much.85.158.139.228 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Peter M.

Are you suggesting a specific change to the article? The "Golliwog as racist insult" section seems adequately sourced, and I don't see any problems with it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing racist about the golliwog doll. When I was young I collected the badges. I still have them. I was neither then nor now a racist. One of my black friends dresses his two year old son (also black) in a golliwog costume and his hair is in the golliwog style. Now he being black has absolutely no problem with this, so nor should anyone else. Meanwhile the 'whites' have to endure clowns in all shapes, colours and dress. Nobody is apparently offended by white stereotypes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.214.96 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because racism does not affect White people as a pervasive system of oppression. Come on. DearPrudence (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been wondering, McGeddon. This discussion page is aggravating. I can't believe how many people (all White, I suspect) feel the need to defend a racist caricature and demand why White dolls aren't considered racist. Very little understanding of racism, a lot of racist apologism. It's depressing. DearPrudence (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying golliwogs are racist is actually racist

People seem to automatically think 'racist' when they hear the word black. Just because golliwogs are supposed to be black people, that doesnt make them inherently racist. It seems quite racist the way people think that if something is about black people it is racist. Yes, a golliwog dartboard would be racist, but a golliwog in and of itself is not. maybe some representations of them in them media may be actually racist, but the golliwog itself is not racist. Alicianpig (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a specific change to the article, or just chatting about your thoughts on racism, here? The "Golliwog as racist insult" section still seems adequately sourced and contextualised. --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011‎ (UTC)

Pointing out racism is not racist. Golliwoggs aren't seen as racist just because they're supposed to be Black people. There are lots of dolls of Black people that aren't racist. Golliwoggs represent racist caricatures. DearPrudence (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

On 8th November 2011 the Golliwog was the subject of BBC Radio 4's "Richard Herring's Objective" [7]. Ir was suggested by guest Sarah Wood, curator of the V&A Museum of Childhood, that the name nay have dervied from the word "polliwog" (meaning tadpole). This seems to be supported by such sources as this. Should this be added? 109.153.206.136 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Move? 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Would not a move to 'golliwog' be in order? It's the more common spelling both in the article and here on the talk page. I'm old enough to have had one as a child (no, I didn't associate it with black people either) and I'd never seen the -gg version before. Rothorpe (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll move it soon, and begin to standardise the spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Move option is unavailable (but not here on the talk page). Anyone know why? Rothorpe (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I Object! or at least, I would suggest leaving the article name as it is - and "Gollywog" as a redirect. "Gollywogg" was the original spelling, after all, with the final "g" only dropped later. It seems a fair bit of work to move it, for no great benefit. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, an objection at last. Don't worry, it's impossible to move it. There is a redirect. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Looked to move it again, but then a hunch led me here. Still seems the wrong spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Golliwogg → Golliwog – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google returns 416,000 results for golliwog but only 112,000 for golliwogg. As well, the article text uses the single g spelling. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely the common spelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tendentious and / or erroneous statements

1. The eyes of the golliwog are not rimmed in white. They are simply white eye-balls with an iris in the middle of it, and infrequently the iris is at the rim of the eye-balls.

2. The golliwog has red lips. Did Upton ever say that they were clown's lips? If so, please present a reference for that assertion.

3. None of the assertions that the golliwog is a rag doll in the minstrel tradition is supported by references. I very much doubt that it is. Upton herself stated that it was a gnome. As far as I know, gnomes do not have anything to do with the minstrel tradition. Dirk Bontes (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

regarding 2, I changed clown lips to red lips, that is indeed more accurate. --Hannolans (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I've added the POV template to the article because it doesn't appear to be neutral on modern controversies about the golliwog; rather, it seems to be advancing an editorial argument that criticisms of the character are a modern overreaction.

I think The Story of Little Black Sambo is a good example of a similar subject that's handled more neutrally in its article. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)