Talk:Golliwog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origins of 'Golliwog'

The Golliwogs are friends with the jamjars. In the statement "golliwog is a racial slur in (a number of named countries)", towards the end of the article, I have removed Greece. The word golliwog does not feature in the Greek language under any context, and is unknown to native Greek speakers who do not speak English or have had no contact with the English speaking world. (Note: this is not POV. I am not trying to suggest that the Greek language is free from racial/ethnic slurs - far from it. I am merely stating that "golliwog" is not one of them). D.

Could golliwog be a Dutch word?

Are you sure that it's a caricature of an African American? Couldn't it be an African Negro or some other dark-skinned person from the Dutch or the British Empires? -- Error

The best I can do is point to the story outlined in the article-- the first Golliwog was created by an Englishwoman who'd lived in the US, and it had aspects of an American nature. If there were earlier non-American Golliwoggs I can't find anything about them, though it's certainly possible that the Golliwog was later associated with non-Americans.

It's fairly clear that whereever the term originated, Upton's Americanized Golliwog and its descendants have pretty much taken over. And the American connotations are still evident from things like Debussy's naming a piece "The Golliwog's Cakewalk." (A cakewalk being an African American dance.) Dachshund 19:43 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All this smacks of the fairly normal inability of USians to see things through anything other than their own narrow prism. Neither the two dutch dolls nor Little Black Sambo were African Americans; the latter was set in a fairy tale India. Upton may have come from the US, and her experience may have been with African Americans; but, dear reader, African Americans originated from, err, african. To see all of this as being about Americans rather than Africans or - pace Little Black Sambo - non-white people generically, seems, as I noted, to be that north american myopia. Once Golliwog means Black, it can easily be applied, as by Debussy; his application does not in any way confirm the antecedents of the word. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I think the Dutch colonial presence in the Ceylonese city of Galle may, when added to the Dutch East India Company's VOC, and Dutch or British East India Company uniforms go a long way to describing Golliwog. Are the Jamjars the Janjiweed Islamists of their place and time? Did Golliwog ever have Hindu Sadhu style dreadlocks or simply an unkempt frizz? Presumably, he and the Dutch Dolls were colonials in an American environment. 210.50.52.5 11:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Ian Ison

Tagishsimon, I had the same reaction when I read the first sentence of this article. Yes, Upton modeled her golliwogg after a "darky" minstrel doll she had as a child, but the character itself emerged after Upton had moved to England and had been there for ten years or more. The character's first appearance was in a British children's book. So, to my way of thinking, the character, while almost a twin of its American cousin, is technically British/English.

Little Black Sambo, however, is also classic darky iconography: thick lips, bushy hair, googly eyes. Of course, many Indians -- particularly Tamils, who have not been miscegenated with Persians, Asians and a few whites, like much of Hindu India -- are blacker than most African Americans (for obvious reasons; recent DNA testing shows them descended from the San bushmen of the Kalahari). And, yes, some do have frizzy/nappy hair. The story takes place in India, but Bannerman's Little Black Sambo is clearly a "darky" à la U.S. iconography. That might seem incongruous, but bear in mind that Bannerman was born in 1863 -- at a time when the American-manufactured, minstrel-inspired "darky" archetype was ubiquitous in the U.S., Europe and beyond. Her illustrations clearly were "colored," if you will, by darky iconography -- because Sambo is clearly NOT East Indian -- unless he is the blackest of Tamils with the nappiest of hair. Keep in mind that at the time, as far as I know, only (and certainly principally) black Africans and diasporic Africans -- principally, African-Americans -- were rendered in such a manner. East Indians at the time, while certainly the subjects of racism and racist depictions, were not rendered as darkies, which is a very specific form (see my contributions to blackface).

I invite you to view the following link, which is a photo of the cover of the 1st edition of Little Black Sambo:

http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/04110908011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8540000/8541805.jpg * (see later note)

He is clearly black/African/African-American in appearance. Also, keep in mind that "sambo" was a term (with, it is surmised, Fulah/African origins) common in the Caribbean since the 1700s to describe someone who was 3/4 black/African. And "sambo" has been part of the American English lexicon for more than a century, meanng a shiftless, lazy black man. Further, almost immediately, there were lots of reprints in the U.S. of Bannerman's work -- many of them pirated -- many containing some of the most blatant and most demeaning darky iconography imaginable. So, ease up off the self-centered, "Ugly American" tip. With a mental cretin like Bush in the White House -- and set for four more years of God knows what, such characterizations may seem even more appropriate than usual. But such confusion on the part of Americans is due, at least in part, to Bannerman herself.

Still, the pertinent text of this article should be reworked to read more accurately. I haven't even read the article in its entirety, so I'll leave the task to you or someone else. deeceevoice 15:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• NOTE: Just clicked the link. Wrong link. Clearly, this is a later edition. (Note the illustrator). Will see if I can find the one I had in mind. deeceevoice 21:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we have something on zambos. -- Error 00:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"extremely offensive"

Thats POV. Verify. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous claim; unless you're saying that anyone actually disputes the statement that 'golliwog' is an extremely offensive racist epithet, it doesn't need verification, any more than does the claim that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth, that horses are quadrupeds, or that bears... well, whatever. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do! Indeed I insist that if I called someone a "golliwog" they'd probably laugh, and doubtless wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about. Of course intonation makes a big difference, so if you say anything the wrong way its likely to cause offense, but c'mon! I seriously doubt there are many people who have enough of a clue of what the word means to take "serious offense" at it. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely its only offensive if the original author of the book intended it to be? You cant POSSIBLY be saying we should apply 21st century sensibilities to something created in the 19th C!?!? I suppose you could say something like "With the passage of time it is now considered offensive"~~

Please read the article... in case you haven't noticed, the current version of the article only uses the word "offensive" twice, once in reference to the Greater London Council saying it to be offensive in 1983 and once in reference to the California Department of Motor Vehicles stating it to be offensive in 2004. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

A Golliwog was designed to be a negative caricature of black people. It wasn't meant to be nice! How on earth can those features be considered 'inoffensive'? Denial AF88.108.40.252 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was actually designed to accustom children to black people. You forget, at this book's time of publication, Black people were considered the missing link between humand and apes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.155.250 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish Gollywog

So when you look at Black people you think of pitch black skin and bugged out eyes? Come on people, this is nothing short of a caricature. Do we have to post examples of what those are?76.99.61.187 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of my black friends think the doll is hillarious! It's a doll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.168.33 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Next we can finally get rid of that racist anti-Irish gollywog Ronald McDonald. Boycott clowns!!72.248.152.57

Rarity

Is this geographical? I've hardly ever come across 'golliwog' used as a racial epithet, so I assumed that it was rare. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the text states, "On the other hand, in England and its colonies, the word "wog", likely derived from "golliwog", became an epithet applied to dark-skinned peoples worldwide, from Africa and the Caribbean to Australia and India. The term survives as an extremely offensive racial epithet." deeceevoice 18:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wog is certainly an offensive racial slur used against both Black and Asian people in England. I have never heard of golliwog used in this context, --SqueakBox 18:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's my experience. The derivation of 'wog' from 'golliwog' is conjectural; most authorities that I've read either say that it's likely but commit themselves no further – e.g., the Collins Dictionary – or don't mention it at all — e.g. The Concise Oxford Dictionary:

wog

→ n.

(Brit. informal, offensive) a person who is not white.

- ORIGIN 1920s: of unknown origin.

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While fully aware of the word wog since my adolescence I hadn't related it to the word golliwog until here. That is just my persoanl experience, --SqueakBox 18:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Curious. I've always associated the term with "golliwog." I've never heard any other possible explanation of its origin, and the connection seems quite clear. This from the Merrian-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: wog

Pronunciation: 'wäg, 'wog

Function: noun

Etymology: perhaps short for golliwog

Date: circa 1929

chiefly British : usually disparaging : a dark-skinned foreigner; especially : one from the Middle East or Far East deeceevoice 19:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So another 'perhaps'. In any case, we seem to be agreed that the term 'golliwog' itself is used as a racist epithet rarely, at best — is it OK if I replace the 'rarely' in the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's with the "perhaps"? The article stated from the outset that the origin is not definitive, but likely. Further, I just don't get the need to make some possibly erroneous presumption about the frequency of its use. And what constitutes "rarity," anyway? I would suppose it all depends on the kind of company one keeps and the cultural context. There's no need. Leave it as is. So, no. I most certainly do not agree~ deeceevoice 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can well imagine golliwogg is a term used a lot in white supremacy circles, but not amongst the general population of the UK. I have no idea about the States though, --SqueakBox 20:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict; a reply to deeceevoice)

1. I don't understand; the relevant line is “Etymology: perhaps short for golliwog”.
2. I thought that your original point was predicated on the claim that 'wog' originated as an abbreviation for 'golliwog'. First, as we've seen, that's only conjectural, and secondly, it doesn't justify the claim that 'golliwog' is still used as a racist epithet.
3. Your point about cultural context and the company one keeps would makes sense if at any point you'd suggested that you'd heard the word used in this way, or had evidence that it was. Frankly, I don't think that it is, but I added 'rarely' to cover the occasional peculiar exception. Do you have any grounds at all for the claim? While SS's demand for a citation for its being offensive was misplaced, because no civilised person would deny it, this claim is different. Until there's a citation, I think that the claim either has to go altogether, or at least be modified by 'rarely'. (The need, incidentally, is the desire that our articles be true; isn't that what we're all supposed to desire?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding -- right? The only way I've ever heard "wog" used is as a racist slur. I didn't even realize you were even questioning that! Are you really? That's downright crazy. "Wog" is like "kaffir" or "nigger" or "darky" -- no different. deeceevoice 22:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further, speaking of "the desire that our articles be true," the apparent "need" (especially by those who seem unfamiliar with the term as a blatantly racist epithet in the first place) to subjectively and definitively state how frequently a term is used -- without any empirical evidence whatsoever to support such a claim -- IMO, is completely without merit and is unacceptable. deeceevoice 22:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm utterly bemused.

1. Where in what I wrote is any suggestion that 'wog' has ever been used in any other way but offensively? My whole point was to dismiss SS's assertion that we needed a citation to prove it.
2. You've made a claim about the current, non-rare use of the term 'golliwog' as a racist epithet; I have never heard it so used, and SqueakBox seems to concur. If it were common, I think that in my forty-nine years of living in different parts of England and visiting many other places, and mixing with different social groups, I'd have heard it. I thus ask for some evidence that its use is not rare; why is that unreasonable? If it were used, it would of course be racist and offensive — if you'd followed my edits and what I said here, you couldn't doubt that that was my point.
3. You claim that Debussy's 'Golliwog's Cakewalk' – part of a suite for children, and reflecting his interest in early jazz (and making sly digs at Wagner) – isn't based on the children's soft toy, but is racist; again, that's a positive claim that demands some evidence.
4. I've just looked at the article on Wog, which makes the point that the etymology is unclear, but asserts that the use of 'wog' is rare. I've questioned that, but we'll see what they say. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, the golliwogg is a racist depiction based on a racist stage artifice: blackface. The controversy around the doll is because, even as a doll, it has racist associations and is classic darky iconography, which is racist. DeBussy's "Golliwogg's Cakewalk" is like saying "Nigger's Coon Dance." After all, the song was not titled "Raggedy Ann's Cakewalk"; the association with African Americans is clear. Was there malevolent intent in Debussy's title? Probably not. Such casual use of racist slurs and racist caricature was, at the time, de rigueur, but the nonchalance and thoughtlessness with which racist slurs were thrown around in Debussy's time doesn't make the fact of such practice any less racist/offensive. And to cite a composition titled "Golliwog's Cakewalk as a nonracist use of the term is absolute nonsense. Any black person with half a brain would see the racism in that immediately." deeceevoice 13:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(after two edit conflicts)

I'm not sure why you're ignoring most of what I say; do I take it that you agree with it all? With regard to your comments on Debussy, they simply don't stand up. You ignore historical context, insisting on interpreting the thought and behaviour of people over a century ago as though they were thinking and behaving now. I have many black friends who find the position you're adopting ludicrous and rather embarrassing, incidentally, but that's as irrelevant as your statement about what any black person (with your question-begging proviso about their intelligence) would think. Wikipedia isn't based upon such vague and unverifiable claims. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first time I heard the term "wog" was when it was used by a British fellow to refer to an Australian aborigine. According to the online OED: "wog1 noun Brit. informal, offensive a person who is not white." deeceevoice

The MS Encarta online dictionary: "wog (2) - wog [ wog ]; noun; U.K. a taboo term for a member of any people that has dark skin ( taboo ). [Early 20th century. Origin uncertain: probably a shortening of golliwog.] deeceevoice 13:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Cambridge online dictionary: "Definition, wog: noun [C] UK AND AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH OFFENSIVE. A black person. deeceevoice 13:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The American Heritage online dictionary: "NOUN: Chiefly British Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a person of color, especially a person from northern Africa or western or southern Asia. ETYMOLOGY: Probably short for golliwog."

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "wog. Pronunciation: (wog), [key] —n. Chiefly Brit. Slang (disparaging and offensive). any nonwhite, esp. a dark-skinned native of the Middle East or Southeast Asia."

deeceevoice 13:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of this is supposed to show, as none of it contradicts what I've been saying. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone has repeatedly deleted references to Australian aboriginals. The point is wog has been used to refer to all people with dark skin, including blacks/Africans and Australian aborigines. I'm reinserting it in the article. Further, I've already said Debussy's use of the term probably had no injurious intent; but the fact of the matter is the golliwog is a racist caricature based on a racist caricature (her childhood blackface minstrel doll) based on a racist caricature (blackface, which mocked African American slaves), and placing it in the context of a dance invented by African American slaves brought the association full circle. deeceevoice 13:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also deleted the reference to the date of the term, because the OED (and, presumably, other dictionaries) merely mention the first known instance of a word appearing in print. Florence Kate Upton's Golliwogg came on the scene in the 1890's, and shortly thereafter "golliwog" became a generic term. It is hihgly unlikely that "wog" as a racial slur took 25 years to take root, and to make a statement to that effect is likely highly inaccurate. And since it's certainly not essential to the article, it should go. deeceevoice 14:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen any references to Australian Aborigines being deleted, and thought that you were replying to me. But in any case, there's a separate article on Wog, and we shouldn't be duplicating material like that. As for the comments on Debussy, they seem to be personal research (and disputable). I've no idea what you mean by the reference to a dance by black slaves 'bringing it full circle'.

As for your surmise that 'wog' took 25 years to arise, that's based on the further surmise that it's an abbreviation of gollliwog. None of the dictionaries say that this is better than probable, most of them say it's merely possible. The 1920s date is verificable and citable, so it should stay. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although this discussion is very old, I need to add the point here that although a reader states that they heard and English person refer to an Australian Aborigine as a "wog", they are never referred to by that particular term by other Australians. The term "wog" in Australia is not applied to people with black (or very dark) skin. It is applied to Southern Europeans and Middle Easterns. In a few very Anglo-Celtic-Australian suburbs where there were few Southern Europeans, it has been applied to any Europeans, including Germans and Dutch, but this is a very rare use. The term is very commonly used, but is not applied to Orientals at all. In Australia, the term "wog" is soommonly used that Australians of Greek, Italian, Slavic and Lebanese descent often refer to themselves as "wogs". The other suggested origin for the term is that it came from the British "Worthy Oriental Gentleman". Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wog

Wog includes italians and other mediteranean folk, look into it. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 22:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I think you're getting confused with 'wop'. Noisy | Talk 18:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC))

"Some contemporary Australian comedians of Italian and Greek cultures have attempted to reclaim the use of the word, and the term does not remain heavily loaded in Australian culture."

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 22:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[1]. Wog is a separate article and therefore it's meaning should not be discussed here, only whether it is connected to golliwogg, and if so which word came first, --SqueakBox 23:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I believe W.O.G. (Western Oriental Gent), W.O.P. (Western Oriental Person) and W.A.P. (West Asian Person) were all coined by British soldiers during the WWI campaigns and subsequent policing operation during the ethnic population exchanges in the eastern Mediterranean. All were formally correct, but they were most often used in a pejorative sense given that all the civilians and functionaries of the old regime with whom they were dealing were adept at self-aggrandisement in hopes of better treatment. They applied to many ethnic groups formerly under the umbrella of the Ottoman Empire (including Turks, Greeks, Jews, Gypsies, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Persians and Arabs - but no doubt occasionally extended to others, too). 210.50.52.88 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Ian Ison

Source

Can we source the claim that white Australians have been called golliwogs? --SqueakBox 23:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI: blackface minstrelsy and Kate Upton's legacy: darky iconography

FYI: Golliwog perfume was popular during the '20s and 30s and into the '40s. Most black americana collectors are familiar with this French perfume. It was sold in Europe and, in the U.S., in drugstores. The bottle is a typical blackface darky with bright, red lips and woolly hair. (In this case, seal fur). The glass bottle in which the golliwogg "sits" is actually a cookpot. Note the spots on the bottles rim, meant to suggest leopard fur. (This link likely will expire in 14 days or so.) [2]

One of Upton's illustrations: note the huge, pink lips. [3]

A generic golliwog on a postcard: [4]

Lastly, a website selling "golliwog collectables" -- that includes other forms of darky iconography. Why? Because they are virtually indistinguishable from one another. [5]

About the term "golliwog"

For the person who wrote they are unfamiliar with "golliwog" being used as a racial slur, Merriam-Webster defines "golliwog": "Etymology: Golliwogg, an animated doll in children's fiction by Bertha Upton †1912 American writer Date: 1895; 1 : a grotesque black doll, 2 : a person resembling a golliwog."

MS Encarta: "offensive term: an offensively grotesque cloth doll with a black face and hair and brightly colored clothes. Now rarely made, the dolls are offensive to black people, as is the term itself. ( taboo offensive )"

American Heritage Dictionary: "NOUN: A doll fashioned in grotesque caricature of a Black male." deeceevoice 14:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has said that 'golliwog' hasn't been used as a racial epithet; I've argued that it's no longer used (though I've been willing to compromise on 'rarely'). Nor have I made any comments on its use in Upton's book, nor on anything else that you argue here. I'm unsure what's going on; you seem to be ignoring most of what I'm actually saying, and going to great lengths to make a case against what I've not said at all.

Perhaps you're in part confusing me with User:Sam Spade, who has twice removed the claim that the use of 'golliwog' (and 'wog') as an epthet is offensive. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you please go read wog? Its not universally offensive by any means. Again w the lack of research... oi... Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 18:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, your insistence on this is unpleasant. The context here is clear; what scientologists and sailors crossing the line mean by the term is irrelevant. The consensus on this page, whatever else we disagree on, is that the terms are, when used as racial epithets, offensive. I know of no source, including Wog, that suggests otherwise; none of the numerous dictionary definitions listed on this page suggests otherwise. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Australia maybe needs redefining, otherwise I support Mel's last edit which doesn't contradict the reclaiming of wog in modern Australia, --SqueakBox 19:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've placed this article on RfC; let's see what other editors think of SS's insistence that 'wog' and 'golliwog' are not offensive when used as racial epithets. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have we established a definite link between wog and golliwogg, and even if we have should we not entirely concentrate on golliwogg being an offensive term, and leave the debate on wog's (obvious in large parts of the world) offensiveness to wog. I always understood that they went out of popularity as teddies because of the racial offensiveness, --SqueakBox 19:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

1. There's no definitie link, and the article doesn't say that there is; there's a possible-to-probable link, which the article makes clear, adding a little material on 'wog', consistent with its relative importance to this article.
2. SS has again removed a chunk of material, referring in his edit summary to this page, but adding nothing here, and ignoring the points made by SqueakBox and me (and I assume supported by deeceevoice, given his earlier comments). I've replaced it until there's some good reason giving for removing it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The particular uniform-like outfits worn by Gollywog with Blue Jacket and Red Pantaloons as in the French Republic's African Zouave corps or Red Jacket and Blue Trousers as in the British East India Company's native Sepoys suggests a possible wider ethnic heritage for the Golliwog image. The possibility that uniforms of French partisan auxiliaries in the American conflicts after the War of Independence including subsequent Caribbean campaigns may have contributed to the American original of the image is easy to perceive. The Anglo-Indian image may well have an independent history which later merged with the American with its more colourfully exaggerated ethnic characteristics. The Indian liking of the term 'Golly' should not go unremarked here. It may be associated with a local word - e.g. Galle in Ceylon which might link the uniform to the Dutch who, it should be remembered, also had a Caribbean presence as well as our Dutch Dolls. 210.50.52.5 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Ian Ison

Now rarely made,

I have modified the text which indicated they are still popular which doesn't fit with them rarely being made now, --SqueakBox 15:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

In England and its colonies, the word "wog", generally thought to be derived from "golliwog", became an ethnic slur applied to dark-skinned peoples worldwide, from Africa and the Caribbean to Australia and India. The term "golliwog" is still used, albeit rarely, as an extremely offensive racial epithet.

Keep restoring inaccurate content and you'll earn the page a dispute header. Go read wog. There is no agreement that wog comes from golliwog, its just an idea. Also wog is not universally offensive, and golliwog is not "extremely offensive". Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you bothered to read other editors' comments before jumping in and deleting material, you'd have seen my responses to those points. (As you haven't replied to them I assume that you haven't seen them.) Oh, and dispute headers aren't weapons for backmailing users into doing what you want. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't assume. Read the talk page. I have been actively engaged in discussion. You for your part have failed to respond @ Talk:Golliwogg#.22extremely_offensive.22 while continuing to revert. Please do a moments research, there is no hard evidence that golliwog led to wog. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disregarding the general unfriendliness people are treating each other with, I must agree partially with Sam. "The term "golliwog" is still used, albeit rarely, as an extremely offensive racial epithet." I'd like to see references, if you don't mind. First: was "golliwog" (or "golliwogg") ever used as a racial epithet? The article does not try to establish this. Imagining that it might have well been is not sufficient. Second, is it indeed "still used, albeit rarely"? (I am not making any statement on the issue of where wog comes from, but even if it did come from "golliwog", this does not establish the original term was used as a slur, speculation notwithstanding.)

This does not seem to be the sort of "the Earth is round" statement it is claimed to be. For one thing, people personally claiming to have heard "golliwogg" used in this fashion are notably absent. JRM 12:03, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Update: just saw deeceevoice's references buried in the prose above. I think Encarta could be listed as a secondary source for the assertion that it is considered offensive (the others do not list the term itself as offensive, something they make a point of doing for nigger). JRM 12:06, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Good morning, JRM. :) You beat me to the punch. I was in the process of searching my post for the definitions I provided for "golliwogg" to support the article. I've removed the disputed blurb at the beginning of the article, as there is general agreement here. Spade first rewrote the passage, saying that "wog" was a "generic" term for black people -- not saying anything about its offensiveness. Then he contended that the article stated definitively the origin of "wog" -- which it clearly does not; it merely states a fairly common consensus regarding its origins. Now he wants to dispute that the term "golliwog" is offensive. He's being completely unreasonable and completely ignoring the evidence. deeceevoice 12:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to be just a tad unreasonable as well, then. Yes, good morning. :-)

First: I don't contest "wog" is offensive. I don't consider it unlikely "wog" derives from "golliwog" (though I will of course let the etymologies in dictionaries attest this; my personal opinion matters little). The problem lies in inferring from this that "golliwog" is in current use as a highly offensive term. If Encarta were listed as a source for this in the first place (or any other number of sources) this would be no problem. If Sam's being "completely unreasonable", why not just shut him up by making the sources explicit in the article? He hasn't deleted attempts at putting those in, has he? JRM 12:40, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

1. Well, first of all SS is deleteing the references to 'wog' being used offensively, and his edit summaries have mentioned only that. An extensive list of references has been given on that point.
2. In the face of his unreasonable and aggressive approach, and having experienced his reponse to my supplying of evidence on other articles (he didn't bother reading them because he knew he was right), I didn't supply references (I'm a little surprised that the claim be challenged at all, to be honest). Here are some: [6], [7](see section heading: "New Zealand: Broadcaster Tony Veitch is under fire for calling an African American tennis player 'the world's ultimate golliwog'"), and [8]. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I'm a little surprised that the claim be challenged at all, to be honest." Oh, don't be. I'm sure it's painfully obvious to people who've actually heard it being used, and to people who freely infer from "wog" how "golliwog" is used, but I'm neither of these. You'll have to forgive me for demanding you cater to ignorance, here. That's what an encyclopedia is for, after all. :-) As I said, "golliwog" has nowhere near the currency of the infamous "nigger" in this regard, and the article itself admits it's used "rarely". You'll have to excuse someone whose native language isn't English and who isn't intimately familiar with cultures in which the term is used. My Google searches where unwisely for "golliwogg" (mind the extra g) which only returns results on the original dolls and the PC issue, not actual derogatory use. JRM 13:41, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

IMO, there's no more a need to site a reference regarding the offensiveness of the term "golliwog" when applied to a person than to do so when writing of "coon" or "darky." They're well-recognized offensive terms. My god, just look at the damned doll! Despite some folks' fond memories of the thing, it's classic racist, darky stuff -- particularly as Upton first drew it. But if someone feels compelled to do so, have at it. In fact, I have photos of the earlier drawings, in the minstrel attire (as opposed to this one, where Golly is in riding gear for a fox hunt), one of which I'd love to post in place of the photo that's currently up. But I still haven't figured out how to do so on Wikipedia. (I'm a techno-idiot.)deeceevoice 13:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem stems from the fact that "golliwog" is nowhere near as well-recognized as "coon" or "darky". I knew those, foreign culture notwithstanding, "wog" included. I'd never even heard of "golliwog" outside the Debussy piece, which obviously lacks context. Again: I'm not disputing that any modern use is offensive. That goes without saying. What I missed was any indication that it was used today (whether it was derogatory when it was originally conceived is difficult to say, as practically everything was racist those days—"golliwog" may or may not have been more insulting than any other choice term then). JRM 14:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

About the extra "g" -- two g's is Upton's character; one "g" are the later, generic dolls ("Golliwogg" wasn't licensed) and the racial/ethnic slur. deeceevoice 13:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One last thing. My objection to "rarely" was I first (mistakenly?) read the passage as saying "wog" was rarely used -- not "golliwog." I don't contest the fact that "wog" was and is far more widely used as a slur than "golliwog." deeceevoice 13:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks, then, as if you and I, at least, are largely in agreement on everything. Phew! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear who you're directing this comment to, but if it's me: I never saw this as a difference of opinion dispute, just a "there are no references and I don't believe this from just reading it" dispute, if that makes sense. I saw Sam's comment as expressing the same; whether he has other objections and what his edits implied is a different matter altogether. JRM 14:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

?My comment was directed at the last person who wrote, as usual — that is, deeceevoice. A list of references have been given for: 'wog' being considered to be a possible/probable abbreviation of 'golliwog; 'wog' and 'golliwog' being used as racial epithets; both being offensive in such uses. That is what the article says. SS's objections have been dealt with. As for his claim below that as a native speaker he's never heard the word 'golliwog'... I'd better not comment. And his claim that he's read my comments is somewhat belied by the fact that he's going to submit an RfC, which I did some time ago. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree w JRM, who as usual is providing a voice of reason. I would add to what he has said that I am a native english speaker, and I've never heard the word before (saw it on recent changes actually). Extremely obscure terms are not extremely offensive to much of anyone. Also there is a problem with article consistancy. The wog article makes very clear that wog isn't always offensive, indeed it has been "reclaimed" by many, especially in australia. The Wog article further clarifies that the link to golliwog is tenuous at best, and generally considered unlikely and unprovable. The level of emotionalism and insistance on reverting changes evidenced here has encouraged me to submit a RfC, which I will now do. Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a native english speaker, and I've never heard the word before... I don't see how your naive provincialism gives you carte blanche to be an edit warrior. "Wog" is a widely known racist insult, and your alleged cluelessness about such an obvious term makes me wonder if it's sincere. --Calton | Talk 09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I read the wog article to say that the rather oddball speculations other than the dictionary explanation of the word's origin were highly suspect. Dictionaries are authoritative works and not prone to publishing idle speculations about etymology. Further, I agree that the word has been "reclaimed" by some; but for the purposes of this article, which treats primarily the subject of its likely historical origin (which is indisputably racist), it is an offensive racial epithet in the context of its original use. I would leave elaborations on the fact that it has been co-opted/appropriated over time to the artile on "wog." That is certainly beyond scope of this article. The fact of the matter is that "wog," when hurled as an epithet is, indeed, an insult. The same is true of "nigger" -- unlike, say, "chap" or "fireman"; it is a loaded word which, at its core is a racial/ethnic insult. deeceevoice 16:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SS added an RfC, worded sneeringly, without apparently noticing that I'd already added one (as I explained above, in the material that he claims to have read and responded to). I removed the duplicate, and he replaced it; after another removal and replacement I explained to him that there was already an RfC there — so this time he added his and removed mine. Just thought that I'd bring other editors up to speed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The American Heritage dictionary says "Wog: Chiefly British Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a person of color, especially a person from northern Africa or western or southern Asia. ETYMOLOGY: Probably short for golliwog." So "Wog" is offensive.

Regardless of the true derivation, if a) "wog" is offensive, and b) people think that "wog" is short for "golliwog," and c) the word "golliwog" contains "wog," then it is common sense that someone offended at being called a "wog" would probably not appreciate being called a "golliwog." If they didn't know what "golliwog" meant they would probably hear it as an intensification of "wog" and take offense. If they did know what "golliwog" meant they would probably be even more offended.

No doubt, mucht would depend on the tone of voice in which the word was said.

I propose replacing the sentence

The term "golliwog" is still used, albeit rarely, as an extremely offensive racial epithet.

With

Dr. David Pilgrim characterizes golliwogs as "a major anti-Black caricature" and notes that "Golliwog is a racial slur in Germany, England, Ireland, Greece, and Australia."

External link: The Golliwog caricature, David Pilgrim, Ferris State University, Michigan

A passage he quotes from Enid Blyton's "The Three Golliwogs" would seem to make it clear that Enid Blyton saw "golliwog" as pretty much the same thing as "nigger:"

"Once the three bold golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and Nigger, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and Nigger said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woogie and Nigger, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song -- which, as you may guess, was Ten Little Nigger Boys." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have in fact given three citations for 'golliwog' being used offensively, but SS hasn't responded to them, and (going on my previous enccounters with him) hasn't bothered to look at them. here they are again: [9], [10](see section heading: "New Zealand: Broadcaster Tony Veitch is under fire for calling an African American tennis player 'the world's ultimate golliwog'"), and [11]. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that SS has again replaced the disputed tag, and removed a large chunk of text, despite the facts that:

1. he is the only person who disagrees with the article, against what is otherwise a consensus, and
2. his objections have all been met with arguments and citations, to none of which has he responded.

I've therefore removed the tag, and replaced the material. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those links don't verify that wog came from golliwog, that wog is always offensive, or that golliwog is "extremely offensive". Your removing of the dispute header is unreasonable. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. The article doesn't say that it's certain that 'wog' comes from 'golliwogg'; the citations given (liberally) above back up what the article does say.
2. The article is concerned with 'wog' as used as a racist epithet, not as used by Australians to mean 'sick', etc. When used as a racist epithet it's undeniably offensive. Again, that's backed up by the citations above.
3. If your objection is only to the use of the word 'extremely', why have you persistently removed the whole block of text?
4. There is in fact no genuine dispute. Of some five or six editors involved on this page, you are the only one to demur from what tha article says on this; there is thus a clear majority consensus. Pushing your PoV on the matter isn't acceptable, and doesn't warrant disfiguring the page with a disputed template.
5. Your insistence on your point of view comes despite your claim to be a native speaker who has never heard the word 'golliwog' before (or possibly the word 'wog', it wasn't clear; neither claim, to be honest, is convincing).
6. Your antics on the RfC page don't bear scrutiny either. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the line that "The term "golliwog" is still used, albeit rarely, as an extremely offensive racial epithet" with the statement that "According to David Pilgrim, the word Golliwog itself 'is a racial slur in Germany, England, Ireland, Greece, and Australia.'" That seems to address Sam Spade's issue, and, personally, I think it is a stronger statement despite the loss of the word "extremely." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three reverts warning

I think, under the circumstances, Sam Spade should be reported for suspension should he revert the text again. This matter, IMO, has been settled; there is a general consensus on the points recapped above by Mel. Good work. :) deeceevoice 12:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he replaces the header, I'll report a 3RR, but he won't; he's always very careful about that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How did the two of you become "concensus"? Do either of you even know what that word means? I certainly won't be violating any wiki policies here, and don't intend to edit the article again until tomorrow. Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you think that only two other people have been involved indicates how carefully you've read the discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact you think I thought that makes me think a thought or two. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. st thought "he doesn't really think I thought that, does he?"
2. nd thought "I have better things to do than fuss about golliwogs all day."

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My revert

The main reason for my rollback was grammar; the family wasn't fourteen when they moved, she was. As for the 'blockquote' versus Wiki-coding, there's not much to choose, but many prefer the use of the colon because it's less browser-specific, and is infinitesimally more parsimonious when it comes to article-size. Do you have a particular attachment to 'blockquote'? If so, I'll not insist on the colon (though I'd be interested to know your reason). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm glad you changed it. I'd thought about doing it myself, but since they display about the same on the particular browser I happened to be using, I decided not to fuss about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I use the blockquote, because it is appropriate format. Block quotes should be indented from both margins, and the colon doesn't do that. I'm returning it, because article length isn't an issue here. (But thanks for catching my grammatical goof!) deeceevoice 14:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just so long as it doesn't put the text into monospaced Courier within a grey box, which I believe at one time it did with some skins on some browsers... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice: good point — i'm ashamed to say that I hadn't even thought of that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pollywogs and golliwogs

So, is there a relationship between the word "pollywog", which AHD says is "Variant of polliwig, from Middle English polwigle : pol, head; see poll + wiglen, to wiggle," and golliwogs? It would seem likely that Upton was influenced by the word... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only thing likely in etymology is that almost all likely explanations are wrong. :-) It's certainly possible, of course. But if Upton ever stated this, it would certainly be sourced in dictionaries. It's not, so basically, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe Upton was influenced by it, consciously or subconsciously, or maybe she did pull it out of thin air (stranger things have happened). It's impossible to say. JRM 21:10, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible, but it doesn't sound very likely (and 'polliwog' is pretty obscure — I don't know whether it was common in her time, or in her social circles). The other etymologies on Wog are downright embarrassing, being at best facetious, at worst offensive in themselves. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know Im four years late, but Ive just come across this and it may not be relevant at all. In the midlands of the UK where I grew up, pollywogs or polliwogs (I dont know how its spelled as I never saw it written down) are woodlice. 86.142.104.73 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr Pilgrim's comments

I agree it is preferable to use a quote to allude to the possible racist connotations of the word Golliwog. However, Dr Pilgrim's statement that "Golliwog is a racial slur in Germany, England, Ireland, Greece, and Australia" is clearly PoV. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's wrong. Like other Brits in this discussion, I have NEVER heard the word Golliwog used in this way, and I am yet to see any citation that shows otherwise (including Dr Pilgrim's article). Nor has a Golly ever been presented to me as a racist caricature, or indeed with any reference to Blacks or anyone else, but as a loveable toy. The fact that it was originally a cartoon drawing of a doll that was ultimately a caricature of a person is no reflection on how the character has been perceived, either by the author or those since. The original article being cited is subjective throughout, despite the obligatory nod in the direction of those who would disagree.

Just to be clear (I've waffled a bit, sorry) my issue here is with that quote - written in the present tense, with no evidence to back up the statement that 'Golliwog' is a racial slur in all those countries (which isn't surprising). Despite the number of footnotes in that article, there is none to back up this particular claim. Xyster 11:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea is that we all know that, if anyone used "Golliwog" of a person, it would be a racial slur — but that's a very different matter. (By the way, how did Greece slip in there, I wonder? Or Germany in the original?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pilgrim may be expressing a point of view. However, the quote itself is factual, i.e. Pilgrim really wrote that. By all means, add other relevant source citations that bear on the topic.

As for "a Golly [has never] been presented to me as a racist caricature... but as a loveable toy," well, that's an issue that always comes up with these things. I am sure there are millions of people in the United States who have never perceived "lawn jockeys" (little blacky-caricature statues used to decorate lawns) as racist, have warm feelings about blackface performers such as Al Jolson, and were not offended by the stereotyping in the Amos 'n' Andy show. I don't see how anyone can say that a Golliwog is not black, or is not a caricature. The racism is in the eye of the beholder. All of these controversies stem from the question of how to handle cultural icons that are perceived by some people as innocent, but by racists as an endorsement of racism as a cultural norm. I loved "Little Black Sambo" as a kid myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the quotation from Pilgrim, as it was presented in the article:

According to David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology at Michigan's Ferris State University:

Golliwog is a racial slur in Germany, England, Ireland, Greece and Australia. Interestingly, it is sometimes applied to dark-skinned Whites, as well as brown-skinned persons (for instance, in Australia it refers primarily to Greeks, but also Italians and Serbs amongst others). Golliwog is also a common name for black pets, especially dogs, in European countries — much as nigger was once popular as a pet name.

Germany and Greexe aren't English-speaking countries, so there's something odd here that at least needs explanation. He also seems clearly to be confusing pet names with names for pets ("Nigger" was indeed a reasonably popular name for a black pet dog in England; I doubt that other European countries used the English word , though).

Perhaps some or all of these problems can be resolved, but until they are, should we have this lengthy quotation in the article? It may be a fact that he wrote it, but it needs more than that to justify inclusion surely? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not reverting for now, but I'm not happy about it. I think readers can decide what the credibility of a professor of sociology is. Certainly not so high as to be unassailable, but not low, either. I agree that wording of the "pet" sentence is garbled and imprecise. I'll try to find a better citation for the use of "Golliwog" as a racial slur. Would you be OK with having the quotation put back in with that sentence omitted?

On a separate matter, I note that an editor says that

"Pilgrim is incorrect on the term's modern Australian usage. "Wog", a term not at all identified with "Golliwog" (despite it's likely origins) is used to describe Southern Europeans. Dark skinned people are not called "wog".)

Yet, the dictionary says:

Chiefly British Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a person of color, especially a person from northern Africa or western or southern Asia.

another dictionary says:

perhaps short for golliwog; chiefly British, usually disparaging : a dark-skinned foreigner; especially : one from the Middle East or Far East

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, as what Americans would call a professor myself, I tend to judge words and actions rather than titles, and this quotations doesn't fill me with confidence. Part of the problem, of course, is that one the one hand we have a number of British native-speakers (including me), none of whom agrees that the term "golliwog" is used at all commonly as a racial epithet (at least, not as part of the standard language or a recognised dialect; it might be part of someone's idiolect); on the other we have a somewhat obscure U.S. professor of sociology who makes a claim about what is said here. Added to that the clear mistake (pet name/name of pet) and the possible mistake ("golliwog" used as an epithet in Germany and Greece), and I think that he loses credibility pretty disastrously.

On the other matter, of the two definitions, the former specifically mentions British, not Australian slang, and the latter is hesitant about the etymology (as well it might be). Here, in the U.K., at any rate, while the term "nigger" is sometimes applied widely to anyone with a dark skin (I myself have had "nigger-lover" screamed at me from an inch or two away, because I came to the help of a group of Bangladeshi women), while "wog" is never used of sub-Saharan Africans, West Indians, etc. It's used pretty broadly, but it ranges from continental (usually southern) Europeans to Middle Easterners and (not so commonly) the sub-continent and the Far East. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Links

Ref: edit adding http://www.gollyworld.co.uk as a URL. Not an informative site so I reverted. Original editor can discuss here. T. J. Day 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

// However, small boys in the 1950s, who would never dream of playing with sissy dolls, had no qualms about a big rag golly and as many golly badges as possible, so that actually meeting a real black man was cause for excitement rather than fear //

This is a completely POV and speculative sentence.

Indeed, it presumes white children associated gollies with black people, or that these dolls influenced their interactions with black men. Please cite evidence that this is the case. I owned a golly as a child and I had absolutely no idea it was supposed to be a caricature of a black person.

Incidentally, gollies were sold in toy shops in the UK right up until the late 1980s (if not beyond), long after the TV minstrel shows had disappeared from the airwaves. 217.34.39.123 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Upton's agenda for 'Polite' Society?

The second image of Golliwog sitting with his legs crossed in THAT way surrounded by three Dutch dolls - one naked but for stockings, and the other two wearing what could only be described as the skimpiest of clothing for ladies of their day, suggests that they were ladies of the night. This suggests that we may well have in these stories a picture of a very real, if seldom seen, adult social or business activity from that period - activity of which the White society of the time would not be so proud and which paints the dark life of poor oppressed Golliwog in quite a different light. 210.50.52.88 10:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Ian Ison

GA fail

Pretty good article. Here are a few things it needs before becoming a GA:

Verifiability: The article needs more in-line citations. Given the controversial nature of the subject, and the fact that there is no bibliography, this article needs better referencing.

Structure: Parts of the last section look like they could be merged into the section before. Also, the article could use more sections in general to aid in reading. Perhaps a "Definitions" section, a "Beginnings" section, and a "Cultural influence" section?

Images: The second image has no fair use rationale for this article. One needs to be provided. Wrad 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Different origins for golliwogs?

I just was listening to a radio program and they had a differen orgin for them altogether. They said golliwogs were taken from Welsh coal miners and therefore not racist at all.

Here's the program, if you listen to it it's about 10mins before the end.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2255624.htm

Tess Livingstone has a book, Enid Blyton at Old Thatch and she's the one interviewed, but I don't know how much this has to do with golliwogs Katana Geldar 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see!

It's racist to show a dark-skinned person as a michievous trouble-maker, but not racist, (in England at least), to depict a Welsh coal-miner like that? So we've conveniently forgotten the little rhyme about "Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief, Taffy came to my house and stole a leg of beef", and other anti-Welsh slurs, have we? Amandajm (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Article

Not sure if relevant.

[12]

72.209.246.97 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright?

Hmm. Most Some of this article seems to have been directly copied from here [13]--GreenSpigot (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like it's only the second paragraph of the lead - I've rewritten and merged it into the History section. --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!--GreenSpigot (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Three Golliwogs.jpg

The image Image:The Three Golliwogs.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

I really object to people phrasing things in such a way that it gives an impression far worse than the actually truth. Not to mention simple inaccuracies.

• The caption to the lead picture made the statement that golliwogs were bbest known through the children's books. This is simply untrue. As a child in the 1950s, I had never seen Upton's books. (They may havebeen out of print). But almost every child that I knew owned a golliwog. The reference to golliwogs in Enid Blyton's books was a spin-off of the popular toy, not the other way around. I myself (as a child) made a number of golliwogs for other children that I knew. The cheapest home-made golliwogs were made from old black socks and had white buttons stitched on with black wool for eyes, a red button nose and (in the absence of felt) and embroidered mouth. Two of my gollies were so treasured that they survived the childhood of their owners. One was in suffiently good condition to be passed down to another child in need of something to hug.
• The other statement, that Golliwogs were often referred to as a horrid sight, the blackest gnome, is either a thoughtless exageration, or a deliberate one, geared at creating the worst possible impression of racism. This is a direct quotation from the book. It occurs once. And it should be in quoation marks. Golliwogs are not often referred to in those words. That type of editting is imflammatory, unnecessary and unacceptable.

Amandajm (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why the biased statements? Isn't the truth sufficient?

I just removed Robertson now denies any link between Golliwoggs and black people.

• The words "now denies" are straight out of journalise. The implication is that Robertsons had a particular position on this (ie. they deliberately consciously related their image to black people) and they now deny that this was the case.
• The whole statement is slanted, biased, anti-white writing at its worst. Robertsons plainly based their chosen icon on the child's toy, not on the black person, either American or English. The choice of the icon reflects the enormous popularity of the toys in Britain. Robertsons aimed at extending the demand for their product to the child market.
• Their icon has changed, because children no longer typically own golliwogs. They have gone for popular images from Roaul Dahl's books.
• The thing that I find really offensive here is that nowhere in the article that is cited will you find the words, or even the implication that "Robertson now denies any link between Golliwoggs and black people."

Amandajm (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

highly misogynistic

This is pure opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorwin (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, in Wiki terms it's entirely POV, But is it? Gawd! I lived through it! My school didn't permit me to study technical drawing and woodwork because the were boys subjects. A girl who got top marks in mathematics was regarded as a freak. Even musical instruments were gender-specific; if a boy played the violin he was a sissy. Real boys played trumpets. The TV programs of the times are a real indicator. Try watching old episodes of "Bewitched". Amandajm (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I just Googled 1950s misogyny and found a great number of references to it, most of which simply take it for granted and therefore don't describe it or state it in any way that is a useful reference. I'll look further. Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2008 (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. [14] [15] [16]

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 [17] 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 [18].

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 [19] 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)