Shootings in Paris

We eventually binned shit like this when it offended members of our community.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1136016/How-golliwog-went-innocent-childrens-hero-symbol-bitter-controversy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... versy.html</a>

How the golliwog went from innocent children's hero to symbol of bitter controversy

By Marcus Dunk for MailOnline 16:54 14 Jan 2015, updated 01:21 05 Feb 2009

For most people, the golliwog will always be associated with Robertson's Jam - the brand's smiling mascot and a comforting reminder of childhood.

But times have changed and he is now persona non grata, a symbol of reviled racist stereotyping.

This transformation would have come as a shock to his 22-year-old creator, Florence Kate Upton, who struck upon the character that would make her name in 1895.

Born into an eccentric English family who had recently emigrated to the United States, Florence studied as an artist in New York, and after her father died in 1889 found work as an illustrator.

But after a trip to London to visit relatives in 1893, Florence decided to stay in England and, hoping to raise money for further art tuition, began to formulate an idea for a children's book.

Stuck for a main character, her aunt, with whom she was staying in Hampstead, North London, found an old battered black-face rag doll in the attic.

As soon as Florence saw him, she knew she had found her protagonist. 'As the Golliwogg has always seemed to me to be telling me his own biography, so in the same way he must have told me his own name,' she later said.

'I picked him up from the table in my studio, and without intention of naming him, without the idea of a name passing through my mind, I called him 'Golliwogg'.'

It was a completely invented name and one that at the time had no negative connotations.

By 1894 the first story, The Adventures Of Two Dutch Dolls And A Golliwogg, was completed and was published the following year.

In this tale, the Golliwogg was initially described as 'a horrid sight, the blackest gnome', but turns out in fact to be good, loveable and brave, with a 'kind face'.

Dressed in red trousers with white shirt and a blue coat, he proved an instant hit with the British public, and Florence and her mother Bertha (who wrote the words that accompanied the pictures) proceeded to publish a whole series of Golliwogg adventures.

Twelve more books were published over the next 14 years as the Golliwogg bravely travelled the globe with the Dutch Dolls, Peg and Sarah Jane, in pursuit of adventure.

Never the most commercially astute of families, Florence and her mother failed to trademark the Golliwogg character, and after the books had proved such a hit in Britain and then Europe, Australia and, to a lesser extent, the United States, toy companies jumped on the bandwagon. Slightly changing the name, they released a flurry of 'Golliwog' dolls, toys and badges.

These dolls proved enormously popular and only the Teddy Bear was more coveted by children in the mid 20th century. Companies across Europe now began producing the dolls, including the German company Steiff, whose original golliwog dolls from 1908 now sell for more than £10,000.

Then, in 1910, John Robertson of jam manufacturing family James Robertson & Sons saw some children playing with a golliwog doll and decided it should be the company's mascot.

Golly first appeared on the Paisley firm's labels that year, and in the 1920s the company began producing Golliwog badges and enamel brooches which could be claimed by collecting tokens from jam jars.

Featuring golliwogs playing sports and involved in various activities, the badges remained sought after throughout the 20th century. 'He's still very popular,' said a Robertson's spokesman in 1999.

'Each year we get more than 340,000 requests for Golly badges. Since 1910 we have sent out more than 20 million.'

As more golliwog toys, watches and dinner sets were produced, the figure became part of everyday life and began to pop up in numerous children's books.

It was in some of these stories, however, that they fell foul of the unpleasant racist stereotyping that has made the golliwog such a contentious figure in recent years.

Children's author Enid Blyton is seen as a major culprit, after portraying golliwogs in her Noddy stories as naughty thieves who once pinched Noddy's prized yellow car.

Meanwhile, the word 'wog' began to be used as a derogatory word for black people.

First popularised during World War II, it was uttered by some British soldiers as a slur against North Africans and other dark foreigners, and its meaning spread to include anybody with even slightly swarthy skin.

The origin of 'wog' is hotly disputed - acronyms such as Wily Oriental Gentleman are suggested derivations, but more likely is that it was adapted from the already well-known golliwog.

However, a few years ago, a study by academics at the Bolton Institute supported the view that 'wog' had a separate derivation and that 'the golliwog, it seems, was not in origin a racist icon'.

By the 1960s, both the use of the term 'golliwog' and the dolls themselves were under increasing attack. Seen at best as racially insensitive and at worst as racist and vicious, golliwogs were gradually removed from public life.

In 1983, the Greater London Council banned Robertson's products from its jurisdiction, and in 1988 the character was no longer use in TV advertising.

The Enid Blyton books' negative use of the character was toned down and, after holding out for many years, even Robertson's Jam was forced to jettison Golly in 2002, a decision that was obviously taken with the greatest reluctance.

'We sell 45 million jars of jam and marmalade each year and they have pretty much all got Golly on them,' said a spokesperson for the company at the time of the change.

Yet here, more than a century after the character was born, Gollywog - or the way the word is used - is causing mayhem in a way Florence Kate Upton cannot possibly have imagined.
 
Damocles said:
SWP's back said:
Damocles said:
You cannot make constant posts slagging off people's point of view without providing an intelligent reply, then accuse others of attempting to derail a thread. I know we're not exactly University Challenge here but that's just taking the piss
Made plenty of pertinent points, thanks all the same for your input though.

It's just that every time I come on to this thread somebody makes a point and the I see a post of yours dismissing it in one sentence, mostly in an aggressive way.

I suppose that I think you might have something intelligent to say on these types of stuff and being the
Piers Morgan of Bluemoon isn't productive to anybody at all.
Would you like me to repost all the nice long posts of mine from this thread buddy?

And sometimes less is more. Just look at citizen of Pakistan for a start.
 
SWP's back said:
Still unable to seperate racism from religious criticism I see.

I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
 
Citizen in Pakistan said:
dennishasdoneit said:
So when that copper is shot five times to the body( and then shifts his position so monumentally in two seconds with the apparent grace of a russian gymnast, not a dying man....before the 6th shot is administered to the head at almost point blank range....why is there no blood.at all?

hours later when the press report from the very spot, there is a mass of dried blood on the pavement,perhaps commensurate with a man having being shot 6 times ...

Yous should be thanking bm for not labeling you a conspiracy theorist, but whether one likes it or not their are genuine questions and here is this sky news reporter caught saying "Blood had been put their "

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKcLouMcYw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKcLouMcYw</a>
Dont give a fuck what anyone labels me really..just asking the question why was their no blood when a a man is shot 6 times, the last of which was to the head at point blank range....
ive seen the video you have posted-its incredible, and still nobody questions anything.
.
 
ArdwickBlue said:
SWP's back said:
Still unable to seperate racism from religious criticism I see.

I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.
 
dronefromsector7g said:
ArdwickBlue said:
SWP's back said:
Still unable to seperate racism from religious criticism I see.

I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

So can I report you the next time you call me an Irish **** then? ;)
 
SWP's back said:
Damocles said:
SWP's back said:
Made plenty of pertinent points, thanks all the same for your input though.

It's just that every time I come on to this thread somebody makes a point and the I see a post of yours dismissing it in one sentence, mostly in an aggressive way.

I suppose that I think you might have something intelligent to say on these types of stuff and being the
Piers Morgan of Bluemoon isn't productive to anybody at all.
Would you like me to repost all the nice long posts of mine from this thread buddy?

And sometimes less is more. Just look at citizen of Pakistan for a start.

I think I've probably just missed your well reasoned posts and only saw the retorts. Ignore me, probably nothing
 
aguero93:20 said:
dronefromsector7g said:
ArdwickBlue said:
I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

So can I report you the next time you call me an Irish c**t then? ;)
Just do what I do and throw a spud at the screen
 
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
aguero93:20 said:
dronefromsector7g said:
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

So can I report you the next time you call me an Irish c**t then? ;)
Just do what I do and throw a spud at the screen
There's a shortage



Oh no I didn't
 
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
aguero93:20 said:
dronefromsector7g said:
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

So can I report you the next time you call me an Irish c**t then? ;)
Just do what I do and throw a spud at the screen

What's a screen? Is that what the missus does when you're after drinking a bottle of whiskey and you start beating the kids?
 
dronefromsector7g said:
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
aguero93:20 said:
So can I report you the next time you call me an Irish c**t then? ;)
Just do what I do and throw a spud at the screen
There's a shortage



Oh no I didn't

We'll be alright mate, we've got all this Facebook, Amazon and Vodafone tax money that they were supposed to pay to the UK but it ended up here instead, we can use that to buy more spuds.
 
SWP's back said:
mackenzie said:
dronefromsector7g said:
You really believe this is about saying 'fuck you' to Muslims? Don't they also take the piss out of other religious figures? I'm still waiting for Jewish/Christian posters to come on here ranting about such offensive cartoons. I actually get the feeling you'd like your accusations to be true for some weird reason.

I think we need to look at demographics. Jews and Christians have been pretty much settled in their respective areas across Europe for generations. That leads to a sense of security and acceptance.
If your environment is somewhat 'new' then you will feel less secure.
Yeah, loads of expat Christian kids blowing themselves up and shooting people here in Qatar so totally agree....

And as I said in my other post last night....'somehow' some young Muslims feel separated. And within your rather glib answer lies part of the problem; you don't want to find out WHY it's happening, you just assume all communities and individuals are the same.
 
ArdwickBlue said:
SWP's back said:
Still unable to seperate racism from religious criticism I see.

I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
As it is racist, yes.

I don't know how many times I have made this point with regards to beliefs being different to genetic predelictions.
 
mackenzie said:
SWP's back said:
mackenzie said:
I think we need to look at demographics. Jews and Christians have been pretty much settled in their respective areas across Europe for generations. That leads to a sense of security and acceptance.
If your environment is somewhat 'new' then you will feel less secure.
Yeah, loads of expat Christian kids blowing themselves up and shooting people here in Qatar so totally agree....

And as I said in my other post last night....'somehow' some young Muslims feel separated. And within your rather glib answer lies part of the problem; you don't want to find out WHY it's happening, you just assume all communities and individuals are the same.
Do I fuck as like.

And you stated in the post I replied to that they didn't feel secure and accepted as they've only been here a short time.

Well they are a fucking great sight more secure and able to practice their religion in Europe than Christians are in areas of the Middle East. Christmas, Easter, Jesus, Judaism cannot be taught in Qatar. Teachers aren't even allowed to mention Greek or Roman gods in history.

Try teaching about Ancient Egyptians and why The Pyramids were built without saying how Pharows were deitified.

I don't think all individuals and communities are the same. It's just some are more tolerant than others and during my experience, Islam has the thinnest skin and is the least tolerant of those religions I have come into contact with.
 
dronefromsector7g said:
ArdwickBlue said:
SWP's back said:
Still unable to seperate racism from religious criticism I see.

I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

It wasn't referring to the comments, although they are relevant as what started as imagery soon progressed into racial slurs. I was highlighting the imagery itself. How it was deemed acceptable at the time and how people/companies vehemently defended the right to use it innocently. How perceptions change.

We all know racial and religious are different, God knows it's been said enough times on this thread, but if a cartoon is produced of a mock Muslim complete with long beard and traditional Muslim clothing in a derogatory way to cause offence and I as a Muslim (for arguments sake) saw it and identified with it because I looked exactly the same, would I not feel similar offence as say a black person might have done when confronted with the imagery of the now defunct "golliwog?."


Some of our fans might chant Munich chants,
some may feel it's their right,
some may feel it's harmless banter,
some may find it offensive,
All should see it as totally unnecessary even if it's legal or not.

What good can possibly come of it?.
 
ArdwickBlue said:
dronefromsector7g said:
ArdwickBlue said:
I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

It wasn't referring to the comments, although they are relevant as what started as imagery soon progressed into racial slurs. I was highlighting the imagery itself. How it was deemed acceptable at the time and how people/companies vehemently defended the right to use it innocently. How perceptions change.

We all know racial and religious are different, God knows it's been said enough times on this thread, but if a cartoon is produced of a mock Muslim complete with long beard and traditional Muslim clothing in a derogatory way to cause offence and I as a Muslim (for arguments sake) saw it and identified with it because I looked exactly the same, would I not feel similar offence as say a black person might have done when confronted with the imagery of the now defunct "golliwog?."


Some of our fans might chant Munich chants,
some may feel it's their right,
some may feel it's harmless banter,
some may find it offensive,
All should see it as totally unnecessary even if it's legal or not.

What good can possibly come of it?.
In theory Edin Dzeko could take offence just as much as a middle Eastern bearded Muslim. His appearance is by the by. I agree not much good is going to come of it. I wouldn't ever draw cartoons of Mohammed if many found it offensive, the point is we should be able to do it without violent retribution.
 
ArdwickBlue said:
dronefromsector7g said:
ArdwickBlue said:
I'm not going to argue with you because you're already getting wound up/aggressive.

The point still stands, why would we offend just because it's legal to do so?.

Do you agree with banning the "golliwog" on the grounds some people found it offensive?.
Again, offensive comments about a person's race is different from those about beliefs.

It wasn't referring to the comments, although they are relevant as what started as imagery soon progressed into racial slurs. I was highlighting the imagery itself. How it was deemed acceptable at the time and how people/companies vehemently defended the right to use it innocently. How perceptions change.

We all know racial and religious are different, God knows it's been said enough times on this thread, but if a cartoon is produced of a mock Muslim complete with long beard and traditional Muslim clothing in a derogatory way to cause offence and I as a Muslim (for arguments sake) saw it and identified with it because I looked exactly the same, would I not feel similar offence as say a black person might have done when confronted with the imagery of the now defunct "golliwog?."


Some of our fans might chant Munich chants,
some may feel it's their right,
some may feel it's harmless banter,
some may find it offensive,
All should see it as totally unnecessary even if it's legal or not.

What good can possibly come of it?.
It might make some people realise that their cult isn't tye be all and end all and that not everybody holds their views so reverentially.

And other than that, no good has to come of it. No good has to come of comedians. No good has to come of reading FHM or GQ.

The main thing is that everyone had the right to do so.

If no one buys th fucking thing as they have no interest in it then the publication will fold.

If folk want to see it, for it to stir debate etc, then it will sell.
 
dennishasdoneit said:
Citizen in Pakistan said:
dennishasdoneit said:
So when that copper is shot five times to the body( and then shifts his position so monumentally in two seconds with the apparent grace of a russian gymnast, not a dying man....before the 6th shot is administered to the head at almost point blank range....why is there no blood.at all?

hours later when the press report from the very spot, there is a mass of dried blood on the pavement,perhaps commensurate with a man having being shot 6 times ...

Yous should be thanking bm for not labeling you a conspiracy theorist, but whether one likes it or not their are genuine questions and here is this sky news reporter caught saying "Blood had been put their "

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKcLouMcYw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKcLouMcYw</a>
Dont give a fuck what anyone labels me really..just asking the question why was their no blood when a a man is shot 6 times, the last of which was to the head at point blank range....
ive seen the video you have posted-its incredible, and still nobody questions anything.
.
How do you know the bullet went into his head? I've watched the video and yes the gun was pointed at his head but he is using one hand to hold the AK so it wouldn't be as accurate, also if he has been shot there maybe no exit wounds it's not like the films you know have a look at some of the footage of soldiers shot in Iraq/Afghan there isn't blood spurting out everywhere it's not Hollywood special effects.
 
SWP's back said:
mackenzie said:
SWP's back said:
Yeah, loads of expat Christian kids blowing themselves up and shooting people here in Qatar so totally agree....

And as I said in my other post last night....'somehow' some young Muslims feel separated. And within your rather glib answer lies part of the problem; you don't want to find out WHY it's happening, you just assume all communities and individuals are the same.
Do I fuck as like.

And you stated in the post I replied to that they didn't feel secure and accepted as they've only been here a short time.

Well they are a fucking great sight more secure and able to practice their religion in Europe than Christians are in areas of the Middle East. Christmas, Easter, Jesus, Judaism cannot be taught in Qatar. Teachers aren't even allowed to mention Greek or Roman gods in history.

Try teaching about Ancient Egyptians and why The Pyramids were built without saying how Pharows were deitified.

I don't think all individuals and communities are the same. It's just some are more tolerant than others and during my experience, Islam has the thinnest skin and is the least tolerant of those religions I have come into contact with.

That just sounds like "they do it as well." It doesn't make it right though does it?.

How long have schools taught about evolution in the UK. There was a time when only creationism would've been taught. School/education is a church invention.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top