Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
There are plenty of racist examples in Blyton - like when Noddy is in a car and lots of gollywogs pop up from hiding, take him to the woods and strip him naked. (echoes the 'How many niggers can you get into a mini?' 'joke'.)

---

Does it? I've never read a Noddy book at all, but Wikipedia tells me that 17 of the 24 Noddy books were published before 1959 (when the Mini was introduced) which rather suggests that wasn't Blyton's intention at all.

PS

I haven't heard this 'joke'. What is the 'punchline' to it?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Blyton;s golliwogs are always naughty, as in the 'dark, dark wood'story.

---

Hardly true, one example does not make for a confirmed fact in all situations.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I collected Robertson's golliwog badges as a 12 ish year old child. I no more connected them to black people than clowns to white people. But, when I found out they were offensive to black people I got rid of them. I didn't want to collect something that was offensive to my friends.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No, golliwogs are racist by their nature. They portray black people in a racist way, it doesn't matter how many people associated them with jam. They haven't become racist because people are pointing out the racism

---

I'm afraid not. Golliwogs have become racist because at somepoint it has been decided they are racist and it has been pointed out.

If they existed and were not racist by intent or perception in the past then they are not "by their nature" racist, it has only been through 'pointing out' that they have become racist.

The doll was a characature of black people, in the same fashion that other characatures exist of other groups of people (most recently Bankers, journalists, corrupt-police officers, politicians etc. etc. etc.) - it is a fundamentally human thing to characterise people, and in the course of describing a bunch of people to use a quick and simple word (in the same way that you instinctivly use the acronym LGBTQ to describe a particular sub-set of humanity with the acronym by its very nature excluding others and paints a picture of the group you are referring to.)

Whether the term 'golliwog' and it's shorter form 'wog' are racist now is still open for debate with films such as 'The Wog Boy' being an example of where hte term is used as a humourous self-identifier rather than as having conotations of a racial slur.

---

Golliwogs were racist even when people didn't have a problem with them, it's just that society as a whole was more racist, therefore no one cared. And I don't see how racist portrayals of black people that refer to pseudo-Darwinist 'science' that suggests black people's inherent inferiority is even close to self-identified LGBTQ people Racist CARICATURES are different to pointing out CHARACTERISTICS. Black people do not look like golliwogs make them out to look like, but people actually are bankers or LGBTQ.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
And next you'll be telling me that Blyton hated the environment and should be complaining to PETA everytime we read that one of the characters inher book was scared by an animal, or an animal was presented in a negative light.

How do react to a minority villian in a modern novel? Is the author racist in that instance or not? As has been put about earlier, do we rewrite Shakespeare or Webster because they present certain characters negatively... Blyton wrote in her time, for a time that is different from our own, that didn't have the acking desire to see discrimination and prejudice lurking round every corner... as a society we really do need to get over ourselves and stop feelign guilty about the past and learn to make a better future whilst acknowledging and celebrating the success and richness (no matter how far it does or does not live up to our modrn standards) that the past contained.

On another thread peeps were concerned with the erosion of the place of history in our syllabus... it seems that peeps on this thread seem intent on rewritting history (by editing Blyton's books) and failign to appreciate the holistic picture of that history they seem so intent on preseving elsewhere...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No, golliwogs are racist by their nature. They portray black people in a racist way, it doesn't matter how many people associated them with jam. They haven't become racist because people are pointing out the racism

---

I'm afraid not. Golliwogs have become racist because at somepoint it has been decided they are racist and it has been pointed out.

If they existed and were not racist by intent or perception in the past then they are not "by their nature" racist, it has only been through 'pointing out' that they have become racist.

The doll was a characature of black people, in the same fashion that other characatures exist of other groups of people (most recently Bankers, journalists, corrupt-police officers, politicians etc. etc. etc.) - it is a fundamentally human thing to characterise people, and in the course of describing a bunch of people to use a quick and simple word (in the same way that you instinctivly use the acronym LGBTQ to describe a particular sub-set of humanity with the acronym by its very nature excluding others and paints a picture of the group you are referring to.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Whether the term 'golliwog' and it's shorter form 'wog' are racist now is still open for debate with films such as 'The Wog Boy' being an example of where hte term is used as a humorous self-identifier rather than as having conotations of a racial slur.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of plaques, do you think the recent plaque commemorating a stay in a house by Lenin should also be removed?

---

quote:

---

One Tory Councillor wrote to the local paper, pointing out that "Thousands died in the red terror he instigated. The descriptions of Cheka terror are virtually beyond description: victims were slowly lowered into furnaces or boiling water, buried alive, or covered in water to become living ice statues in the cold." He went on to ask, "had Franco lived in Camden, would we be comfortable erecting a plaque to him?"

Cllr Marshall was rounded on by Professor Bill Bowring, who spoke at the unveiling of the plaque. The professor said, "As in every civil war in history there were atrocities on both sides. But the only evidence for the crimes with which Cllr Marshall charges Lenin is to be found in the White propaganda of the time. These allegations are highly questionable."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I collected Robertson's golliwog badges as a 12 ish year old child. I no more connected them to black people than clowns to white people. But, when I found out they were offensive to black people I got rid of them. I didn't want to collect something that was offensive to my friends.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
this article, rather unexpectedly, from the that lefty-rag

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
But Jade, if someone makes a racist statement having been nurtured in a racist society, then is that person truly a racist?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
So your point is that it is racist because, I'm guessing, it presents black people as criminals?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

You know the sort of thing,-- nevermind 'bug-splatting' folks on the other side of the planet with Drone strikes , lets all turn on Enid B for inventing the golliwog.

---

Not a zero-sum thing, yeah?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of plaques, do you think the recent plaque commemorating a stay in a house by Lenin should also be removed?

---

No. The infamous are just as much a part of history as the famous. I would also draw your attention to this part of the article, which illustrates nicely that history is never as simple as "us = good, them = bad" - you always have to filter the official version to take into account the fact that history is always written by the winners...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Yes - should be removed. A study by Rob Dixon, ‘Catching Then young: Sex, Race and Class in Children’s Fiction’ (Pluto Press 21978) found that, far from being ‘harmless dolls’ golliwogs were associated with fear and darkness.

In one Enid Blyton story, Here Comes Noddy Again, a golliwog wakes up Noddy at midnight and invites him to a party. He drives to a ‘dark, dark, dark wood’ and lots of golliwogs, who have been hiding in the back seat, surround him. As he gets out of the car, more golliwogs are hiding behind the trees. They strip Noddy naked and drive away. So golliwogs are associated with hijack and ambush.

Florence Upton, inspired by Blyton, wrote a story about three golliwogs called Golly, George and nigger in ‘The Three golliwogs’.

In Blyton’s The Little Black Doll, all the dolls in a dolls’ house refuse to play with Sambo, so Sambo leaves home. He finds another dolls’ house where a sick old lady lives alone. He sweeps the house for her and then he fetches the doctor, who returns with him to help the old lady. It is raining whilst they travel and, as a ‘reward’ for his good deed, Sambo becomes white. The rain has washed his blackness away so he returns to his former dolls’ house where he is welcomes – because he is now white.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
i take issue with the idea that Lenin was not a man with blood on his hands (even if the specific allegations in the article are denied by some lefty professor). And there are a number of unpleasant people who have plaques on walls (including the rather incongruous sight of a plaque for Ho Chi Minh on the wall of the New Zealand High Commission). But I would've thought that Enid Blyton has a much better claim to a plaque than Lenin, hence why I asked the question of Leo who wanted Blyton's taken down. It was just a passing thought that made me pose the question.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm astonished that a teacher, who must have access to hundreds of story books, chose "Little Black Sambo" (by Helen Bannerman, not Enid Blyton, as already pointed out) to read to her class.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Isn't it funny how lefty causes have to always be grouped together. If you are pro-equality, it means you have to be pro-"choice" and pro-Lenin. You would in fact become the left-wing equivalent of a holocaust denier. Oh, and of course, an Enid Blyton hater!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Neither funny...

---

quote:

---

...nor true. There are plenty of campaigners against abortion who support social justice and the number of left-wingers who recognise Lenin for what he was continues to grow.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Granted it isn't always true 100% of the time, but it is usually the case, with a few exceptions such as a gay rights group who also happen to be pro-life.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Wog is a slang term in Australia for people of Italian or Greek extraction, it is not a short form of golliwog has nothing to do with any ethnic groups which may be regarded as 'black.' This is where Nick Giannopoulous and his films/shows come in, he's talking about Greek wogs, not any other use of wog in other places which relates to 'black' ethnicity as a shortened form of golliwog.

It's generally regarded as a non-offensive nickname, same as the way that Australians refer to people from the USA as Yanks, the British as Poms and New Zealanders by making humping motions and sheep noises.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
leo let me ask you a question - do you have a sense of humour, and/or enjoy creative writing?
Or does everything have to be scrutinized by the politically-correct Thought Police, who will ensure any fun or enjoyment is sucked out of it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
But Jade, if someone makes a racist statement having been nurtured in a racist society, then is that person truly a racist?

I think racism is an absolute. If you were racist in the 15th Century and you would be just as racist if you were brought up in the late 20th/early 21st Century, then it's safe to say you are racist.

If you were racist in the 15th Century, but wouldn't be if brought up today, then you are not a racist.

I don't think racism is a relative value. Yes society can be called racist, but to single out individuals brought up in that society, when we have no proof that had they been brought up in a more englightened society, they would not have made racists stetements, is simply wrong. Yes, to society, no to individuals unless they are racist in a more tolerant society.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
People in a racist society who thought and said racist things in say, the 15th century were perfectly aware that they were racist. They just didn't see racism as a negative thing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I have never read anything by Enid Blyton, but I loved 'Little Black Sambo' as a child.

As I saw it, Sambo came out on top of his encounter with the tigers. They tigers behaved foolishly, and Sambo's behavior was intelligent.

It never occurred to me that this was a put-down of dark-skinned people. I saw it as a story in which a child outwits dangerous animals.

Moo

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
People in a racist society who thought and said racist things in say, the 15th century were perfectly aware that they were racist. They just didn't see racism as a negative thing.

---

I think the historical picture is very complex. The Wiki view of the history of racism contains some indication of the variations through place and time. But it does seem that a common element was belief that physical differences and character/ability differences were correlated in some way. Such beliefs were common, respectable, deeply rooted. And wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

Blyton was who she was and by all accounts a deeply flawed imperfect creature who wrote hundreds of very popular books. Wrong though some of her attitudes were, she was a middle class woman from Beaconsfield, and her values were similar to thousands of others (but that's no excuse) and that casual superiority and casual racism has diminished greatly since her zenith.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

I suppose the politicians and civil servants in late 1930s Britain never saw themselves racist when they stopped hundreds of thousands of ''bloody Jews'' from entering Britain to flee from Nazi Germany (although some did enter Britain in very controlled numbers e.g. the ''kinder transport'').

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
It never occurred to me that this was a put-down of dark-skinned people. I saw it as a story in which a child outwits dangerous animals.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
leo let me ask you a question - do you have a sense of humour, and/or enjoy creative writing?
Or does everything have to be scrutinized by the politically-correct Thought Police, who will ensure any fun or enjoyment is sucked out of it?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
leo let me ask you a question - do you have a sense of humour, and/or enjoy creative writing?
Or does everything have to be scrutinized by the politically-correct Thought Police, who will ensure any fun or enjoyment is sucked out of it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

I suppose the politicians and civil servants in late 1930s Britain never saw themselves racist when they stopped hundreds of thousands of ''bloody Jews'' from entering Britain to flee from Nazi Germany (although some did enter Britain in very controlled numbers e.g. the ''kinder transport'').

---

My guess is they had rather more pressing matters on their minds, -- Like an imminant World War ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Enid Blyton wrote over 700 books. She churned them out. Part of her ability to churn out books was based on the fact that she had a range of stereotyped characters which could be trotted out without any effort at nuance or subtlety.

For example, all academic characters were short-sighted, wore glasses and were absent minded. An academic schoolgirl might simply mislay things in an amusing manner but a full-blown professor would be absent-minded to the point of being unable to remember how many children he had, or what their names were.

All French people mangled the English language, causing mirth to the English speakers.

All Scots were called either Jean or Jock and were canny with money.

All farmers wives were plump and jolly.

All American children were spoiled, chewed gum and mangled the English language.

No-one could ever claim that Blyton's stories had any literary merit. However, they were excellent at providing children who were just transitioning to independent reading with interesting, well-plotted stories. If you look at the the books aimed as the "first independent readers" now, lots of them have bright pink, sparkly covers and are aimed at girls, or blue/green covers and aimed at boys. Blyton's books at least have the virtue of not suggesting that girls ought to be mainly interested in pink / fairies / sparkly things / clothes / becoming pop stars.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
If you consider Blyton to be an evil purveyor of racist schlock, there's a simple solution: don't go.

---

Had to look twice at the name after reading this.
There have been reasonable arguments on this thread for the ignoring of celebration. This is of one of them.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou