It probably wasn't considered offensive because there weren't many black people in the UK.
Did it ever really have an innocent meaning though? Enid Blyton's three little Golliwogs was first published the following year. One of the title characters had the same name.
Not sure it was ever really innocent.
Although TBF, naming dogs that was better than having racially segregated regiments.
History has a way of distorting “innocent.”
Slavery was once as normal as it is considered abhorrent now, but we don’t get to go back and change history. It is there to learn from and, hopefully, improve upon.
Sadly, the once popular method of “acknowledging, while not repeating” appears to be trying to be accomplished by erasing any history today’s politically correct snowflakes deem objectionable.
Maybe we should demolish the pyramids in Egypt? I heard they were built by slave labour!
The dog’s name was not even unique in the annals of well-known dogs, but we acknowledge the name is probably not appropriate today, even though the race that finds it objectionable appears to like to use it as frequently as possible.
Regardless, removing the dog’s tombstone because of its name is petty and overly officious, in my humble opinion.
And, fwiw, I feel exactly the same way about Confederate statues in the USA, even though as a “Yankee” I’m glad the South was defeated, of course.
The older I get, the more appreciation I have for history and the greater context I have obtained for both world history and my own.