| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:25:52 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,611 |
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually
happen very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post
Your post is clearly on topic and contains law - related material; as
clearly Christophobia however defined, is covered by Part III of the
Public Order Act of 1986
And it's certainly more on topic, and more law related, that are
posts concerning the price of printer cartridges.
bb
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 13:07:20 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very
much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post
No, it's clearly unacceptable as the two possible examples of the
subject under discussion, Christophobia, that I gave in response to
Jon's post both came from moderators, one of them being Jon himself.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen >>>> very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post
Your post is clearly on topic and contains law - related material; as
clearly Christophobia however defined, is covered by Part III of the
Public Order Act of 1986
And it's certainly more on topic, and more law related, that are
posts concerning the price of printer cartridges.
bb
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:ebn3bktips0u8ltv066dobr7jus9t7b0js@4ax.com...=
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 13:07:20 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very
much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any >>>>> personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post
No, it's clearly unacceptable as the two possible examples of the
subject under discussion, Christophobia, that I gave in response to
Jon's post both came from moderators, one of them being Jon himself.
IOW, you only posted on UNNM in the first place, so as to congratulate >whichever moderator it was, on their decision to reject your post
On 29 Aug 2025 at 13:07:20 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen
very much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any
personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post
Your post is clearly on topic and contains law - related material; as
clearly Christophobia however defined, is covered by Part III of the
Public Order Act of 1986
And it's certainly more on topic, and more law related, that are
posts concerning the price of printer cartridges.
bb
I agree. If asked, I'd say the posts complained of were Christophobic, but >trivially so and not harmful.
And certainly not illegal. But this conclusion
is context dependent, my conclusion might be different in a country where >Christians were in danger of harmful discrimination or violence.
So, boring, but not really off topic, in my opinion.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
So, boring, but not really off topic, in my opinion.
On 29 Aug 2025 23:20:57 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[...]
So, boring, but not really off topic, in my opinion.
I meant to add, not as boring as a pedantic argument about
"Christophobic" vs "Christophobia".
On 30/08/2025 in message <rjg5bkt0f52p3bjq2fu6qfl4dlcvsjqha6@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Aug 2025 23:20:57 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[...]
So, boring, but not really off topic, in my opinion.
I meant to add, not as boring as a pedantic argument about
"Christophobic" vs "Christophobia".
I do hope that JNugent was right about the construction of "Christophobic" as I have used it on Facebook a couple of times now, despite the OED not recognising it :-)
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <rjg5bkt0f52p3bjq2fu6qfl4dlcvsjqha6@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Aug 2025 23:20:57 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[...]
So, boring, but not really off topic, in my opinion.
I meant to add, not as boring as a pedantic argument about >>>"Christophobic" vs "Christophobia".
I do hope that JNugent was right about the construction of "Christophobic" >>as I have used it on Facebook a couple of times now, despite the OED not >>recognising it :-)
Usually it's JNugent confusing people with other people; I don't think
anyone has ever confused me and him before. I would've said it was >impossible.
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:43:21 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
=
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebn3bktips0u8ltv066dobr7jus9t7b0js@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 13:07:20 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
No, it's clearly unacceptable as the two possible examples of the
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mrq0bkt3n36vqstpf9ot1vud6k31fjoeqm@4ax.com...
Yes, it [Christophobic] is little used, because it doesn't actually happen very
much.
Unlike Islamophobia or anti-semitism.
Does accusing Christians en bloc of being mindless and bereft of any >>>>>> personal sense of morality qualify as Christophobic?
Does claiming that an article by a highly qualified university
professor cannot be trusted simply because the university that
employs him is a Catholic one qualify as Christophobic?
"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected >>>>> by a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated >>>>> or has insufficient law-related material."
IMO Someone has clearly made a mistake; and you should resubmit your post >>>
subject under discussion, Christophobia, that I gave in response to
Jon's post both came from moderators, one of them being Jon himself.
IOW, you only posted on UNNM in the first place, so as to congratulate
whichever moderator it was, on their decision to reject your post
You have a penchant for some weird twists of logic. Or maybe you just
don't get irony.
On 30/08/2025 in message
<slrn10b5p69.2c8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <rjg5bkt0f52p3bjq2fu6qfl4dlcvsjqha6@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Aug 2025 23:20:57 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[...]
So, boring, but not really off topic, in my opinion.
I meant to add, not as boring as a pedantic argument about
"Christophobic" vs "Christophobia".
I do hope that JNugent was right about the construction of
"Christophobic"
as I have used it on Facebook a couple of times now, despite the OED not >>> recognising it :-)
Usually it's JNugent confusing people with other people; I don't think
anyone has ever confused me and him before. I would've said it was
impossible.
Whoops. I got the "J" right, apologies JNugent :-)
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's >just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>> up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can remember because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in
1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth asking.
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who >>>>practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>>up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's >>just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at
the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign was racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog
doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who >>>>>practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>>>up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's >>>just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at >>>the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign was >>racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog
doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct >>terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump >>looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
On 30/08/2025 in message <slrn10b6ac3.2c8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>>the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who >>>>>>practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>>>>up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>>Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>>in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>>as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>>agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's >>>>just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at >>>>the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>>Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign was >>>racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog >>>doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct >>>terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump >>>looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
I didn't look like a gollywog :-)
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
On 30/08/2025 in message <slrn10b6ac3.2c8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>> the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>>>> up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>> Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>> agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's >>>> just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at >>>> the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>> Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign was >>> racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog
doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct
terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump
looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
I didn't look like a gollywog :-)
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>> up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can remember because she
died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in 1909 (when she - my
grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth asking.
On 30 Aug 2025 at 18:13:35 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <slrn10b6ac3.2c8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>>>the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who >>>>>>>practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was >>>>>>>growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>>>Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>>>in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>>>as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>>>agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. >>>>>It's
just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at >>>>>the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>>>Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign >>>>was
racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog >>>>doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct >>>>terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump >>>>looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
I didn't look like a gollywog :-)
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
Only among a certain particular kind of people, among whom I don't normally >mix IRL.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>>>Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign >>>>was
racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog >>>>doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct >>>>terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump >>>>looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
I didn't look like a gollywog :-)
My point is: why on earth do you think it not crossing your mind that
it was racist is relevant to anything at all?
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
You may take comfort in not being alone in saying bizarre and ridiculous >things if you wish, but it doesn't stop it being so.
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
On 30/08/2025 15:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>> up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
At the age of 10 you'd probably think practising homosexuals should be
put to death according to the word of god too.
--It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at >> the time.
Or never saw it as racism.
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>>> up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can remember
because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in
1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was racist, as convictions of racial superiority were pretty much universal in England at the
time. (See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated classes' contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for that matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time mocked themselves in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was a conscious parody of their
jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all English people had moved on much by the 1950s.
On 30/08/2025 in message <7738750119.ece140ea@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 18:13:35 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <slrn10b6ac3.2c8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
Only among a certain particular kind of people, among whom I don't normally >>mix IRL.
It appears very frequently on Facebook, no idea of other social media as I don't use it. I suspect Usenet is a more mature audience?
On 30/08/2025 in message <slrn10b6fcu.3cv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>>>>Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign >>>>>was
racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog >>>>>doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct >>>>>terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a hefalump >>>>>looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
I didn't look like a gollywog :-)
My point is: why on earth do you think it not crossing your mind that
it was racist is relevant to anything at all?
Because this thread is about racism.
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
You may take comfort in not being alone in saying bizarre and ridiculous >>things if you wish, but it doesn't stop it being so.
As I said it is a common sentiment so it's not me that's alone :-)
My point is: why on earth do you think it not crossing your mind that
it was racist is relevant to anything at all?
Because this thread is about racism.
Yes. You appear to have missed the point of my question.
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
You may take comfort in not being alone in saying bizarre and ridiculous >>>things if you wish, but it doesn't stop it being so.
As I said it is a common sentiment so it's not me that's alone :-)
You appear to have misread what I said there.
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes. You appear to have missed the point of my question.
It's a Ribbens point, i.e. it's flexible and will mean different things depending on the answer :-)
On 30/08/2025 04:43 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:[RH:}
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>> the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was
growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>> Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>> agenda.
[JN:]Of course it was racism at the time!-a I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at
the time.
[RH:]Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can remember >>> because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in
1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth
asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as
convictions of racial superiority were pretty much universal in
England at the
time. (See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated
classes'
contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for that
matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time mocked
themselves
in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was a conscious parody
of their
jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all English people had moved on
much by
the 1950s.
There's something wrong there...
Earlier, when someone had said: "when i was growing up when [ ... ] Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that as the racism it actually was".
That must have chimed with your view to an extent, because when another poster answered: "it wasn't racism at the time but [is] now
hijacked...", you responded with:
"Of course it was racism at the time!".
And that led me to my question, which is quoted above.
So... you say what can only be contrued as meaning that my great
granmother was not a racist for buying my 2-yr-old grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (if she ever did, which she might have).
So what on Earth was "of course" racist about it?
You went on to exonerate the people of England (you must have meant the United Kingdom unless you are arguing that political boundaries made a difference) of racism in not regarding golliwog dolls (or, eventually, enamel badges of a well-known trademark) as racist.
So how was it "racism"?
Or was this an early example of Schrodinger's racism?
On 31/08/2025 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2025 04:43 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:[RH:}
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>>> the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was
growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>>> Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>>> agenda.
[JN:]Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at
the time.
[RH:]Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can remember >>>> because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in >>>> 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth
asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as
convictions of racial superiority were pretty much universal in
England at the
time. (See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated
classes'
contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for that >>> matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time mocked
themselves
in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was a conscious parody
of their
jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all English people had moved on
much by
the 1950s.
There's something wrong there...
Earlier, when someone had said: "when i was growing up when [ ... ]
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us in
those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that as the
racism it actually was".
That must have chimed with your view to an extent, because when another
poster answered: "it wasn't racism at the time but [is] now
hijacked...", you responded with:
"Of course it was racism at the time!".
And that led me to my question, which is quoted above.
So... you say what can only be contrued as meaning that my great
granmother was not a racist for buying my 2-yr-old grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (if she ever did, which she might have).
So what on Earth was "of course" racist about it?
You went on to exonerate the people of England (you must have meant the
United Kingdom unless you are arguing that political boundaries made a
difference) of racism in not regarding golliwog dolls (or, eventually,
enamel badges of a well-known trademark) as racist.
So how was it "racism"?
Or was this an early example of Schrodinger's racism?
I've spoken to people who owned a golliwog back in the day, and I don't believe that they or their parents were racist (eg that they regarded
black people as stupid, inferior etc) or that possession of such a doll
makes children racist. The general view is that they were cuddled and cherished.
On 31 Aug 2025 at 11:21:43 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 31/08/2025 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2025 04:43 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:[RH:}
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>>>> the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who >>>>>>>> practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was >>>>>>>> growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>>>> Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>>>> agenda.
[JN:]Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12. >>>>>> It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at
the time.
[RH:]Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can remember >>>>> because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in >>>>> 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth >>>>> asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as
convictions of racial superiority were pretty much universal in
England at the
time. (See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated
classes'
contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for that >>>> matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time mocked
themselves
in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was a conscious parody
of their
jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all English people had moved on
much by
the 1950s.
There's something wrong there...
Earlier, when someone had said: "when i was growing up when [ ... ]
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us in
those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that as the >>> racism it actually was".
That must have chimed with your view to an extent, because when another
poster answered: "it wasn't racism at the time but [is] now
hijacked...", you responded with:
"Of course it was racism at the time!".
And that led me to my question, which is quoted above.
So... you say what can only be contrued as meaning that my great
granmother was not a racist for buying my 2-yr-old grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (if she ever did, which she might have).
So what on Earth was "of course" racist about it?
You went on to exonerate the people of England (you must have meant the
United Kingdom unless you are arguing that political boundaries made a
difference) of racism in not regarding golliwog dolls (or, eventually,
enamel badges of a well-known trademark) as racist.
So how was it "racism"?
Or was this an early example of Schrodinger's racism?
I've spoken to people who owned a golliwog back in the day, and I don't
believe that they or their parents were racist (eg that they regarded
black people as stupid, inferior etc) or that possession of such a doll
makes children racist. The general view is that they were cuddled and
cherished.
In which case I don't doubt their sincerity, but I do question their judgement. Are they perhaps part of the set of people who, according to another poster, are constantly complaining that everyone wants to be a victim nowadays?
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects
the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>> up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an
agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time!-a I knew that at the age of 12. It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's Factory
in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign was racist, in
fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a Gollywog doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person (correct terminology at the time), it
looked as much like a person as a hefalump looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
Perhaps it is similar to the way little boys have often been told that
they can't have a gun as a toy, by their enlightened and worthy parents.
And that they should instead have a toy ironing board and iron, cooker, lawnmower.
On 31 Aug 2025 at 11:21:43 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 31/08/2025 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2025 04:43 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com>[RH:}
wrote:
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself
reflects the fact that general bias is often not recognised by >>>>>>>> those who practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of >>>>>>>> when i was growing up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes
were standard comedy and Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were
perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own
hand up here) would have recognised that as the racism it
actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those
with an agenda.
[JN:]Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of
12. It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to
avoid racism at the time.
[RH:]Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can
remember because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still
worth asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as convictions of racial superiority were pretty much
universal in England at the time. (See any eugenics text of the
time to describe the educated classes' contempt for the
intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for that matter.)
The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time mocked
themselves in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was a
conscious parody of their jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all
English people had moved on much by the 1950s.
There's something wrong there...
Earlier, when someone had said: "when i was growing up when [ ... ]
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of
us in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised
that as the racism it actually was".
That must have chimed with your view to an extent, because when
another poster answered: "it wasn't racism at the time but [is] now
hijacked...", you responded with:
"Of course it was racism at the time!".
And that led me to my question, which is quoted above.
So... you say what can only be contrued as meaning that my great
granmother was not a racist for buying my 2-yr-old grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (if she ever did, which she might have).
So what on Earth was "of course" racist about it?
You went on to exonerate the people of England (you must have meant
the United Kingdom unless you are arguing that political boundaries
made a difference) of racism in not regarding golliwog dolls (or,
eventually, enamel badges of a well-known trademark) as racist.
So how was it "racism"?
Or was this an early example of Schrodinger's racism?
I've spoken to people who owned a golliwog back in the day, and I
don't believe that they or their parents were racist (eg that they
regarded black people as stupid, inferior etc) or that possession of
such a doll makes children racist. The general view is that they
were cuddled and cherished.
In which case I don't doubt their sincerity, but I do question their judgement. Are they perhaps part of the set of people who, according
to another poster, are constantly complaining that everyone wants to
be a victim nowadays?
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself
reflects the fact that general bias is often not recognised by
those who practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of
when i was growing up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were
standard comedy and Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were
perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own hand
up here) would have recognised that as the racism it actually
was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with
an agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid
racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can
remember because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth
asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as convictions of racial superiority were pretty much
universal in England at the time.
(See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated classes' contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for
that matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time
mocked themselves in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was
a conscious parody of their jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all
English people had moved on much by the 1950s.
On 16:43 30 Aug 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself
reflects the fact that general bias is often not recognised by
those who practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of
when i was growing up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were
standard comedy and Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were
perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own hand
up here) would have recognised that as the racism it actually
was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with
an agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid
racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can
remember because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth
asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as convictions of racial superiority were pretty much
universal in England at the time.
That is using the term "racist" with two shades of meaning and then conflating the two. First about someone who believes they can
distinguish between races and then secondly about someone who feels a
sense of (Western) racial superiority.
Golliwog dolls were invented in the late 19th century and it wouldn't
have been hard for Brits to feel a natural sense of superiority over sub-Saharan Africans (the prototype for Golliwogs) because at that time sub-Saharans were enslaving their own countrymen despite Wesern
prohibition of the practice. Also the majority of Africans had only
just started to acquire the rudiments of civilisation (such as the
wheel, writing, etc) from the arrival of European colonialists. These
two levels of civilisation were far from equal.
(See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated classes'
contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for
that matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time
mocked themselves in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was
a conscious parody of their jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all
English people had moved on much by the 1950s.
As far as I can tell, the attitude of early audiences was not
particularly hateful towards people depicted by these "minstrels". It
was more amusement and perhaps ridicule at the differences in culture
and appearance.
On 30/08/2025 15:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger >>Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who >>>>>practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was growing >>>>>up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time!-a I knew that at the age of 12. It's >>>just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at the >>>time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the Robinson's >>Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the Gollywog sign >>was racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My sister had a >>Gollywog doll but nobody thought it represented a coloured person >>(correct terminology at the time), it looked as much like a person as a >>hefalump looked like an elephant or hippo looked like a real one.
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
I didn't have a golliwog, but just saw them as anothet cuddly toy.
It seems strange to me though thatthe Robertson's golly should be seen as >racist as those little gollies were intelligent, talented and sporty.
Such a real insult - not.
Were people really so racist back then? My first doll was a black one, >which my father acquired from work where it had been a sample, made from a >type of plastic and jointed but could be fed and then wet a nappy, and not >leak at the joints. That would have been around 1952. Was it racist to >make black baby dolls?
On 31/08/2025 11:41, The Todal wrote:
Perhaps it is similar to the way little boys have often been told that
they can't have a gun as a toy, by their enlightened and worthy
parents. And that they should instead have a toy ironing board and
iron, cooker, lawnmower.
Lawnmower?-a Was that traditionally a girlie thing?
On 31/08/2025 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2025 04:43 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:[RH:}
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>>> the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was
growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>>> Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>>> agenda.
[JN:]Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at
the time.
[RH:]Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can
remember
because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a golliwog doll in >>>> 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth
asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as
convictions of racial superiority were pretty much universal in
England at the
time. (See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated
classes'
contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for
that
matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time mocked
themselves
in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was a conscious parody
of their
jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all English people had moved on
much by
the 1950s.
There's something wrong there...
Earlier, when someone had said: "when i was growing up when [ ... ]
Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us
in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that
as the racism it actually was".
That must have chimed with your view to an extent, because when
another poster answered: "it wasn't racism at the time but [is] now
hijacked...", you responded with:
"Of course it was racism at the time!".
And that led me to my question, which is quoted above.
So... you say what can only be contrued as meaning that my great
granmother was not a racist for buying my 2-yr-old grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (if she ever did, which she might have).
So what on Earth was "of course" racist about it?
You went on to exonerate the people of England (you must have meant
the United Kingdom unless you are arguing that political boundaries
made a difference) of racism in not regarding golliwog dolls (or,
eventually, enamel badges of a well-known trademark) as racist.
So how was it "racism"?
Or was this an early example of Schrodinger's racism?
I've spoken to people who owned a golliwog back in the day, and I don't believe that they or their parents were racist (eg that they regarded
black people as stupid, inferior etc) or that possession of such a doll
makes children racist. The general view is that they were cuddled and cherished.
The fact that a racist might obtain a golliwog doll and place it on the
chair of a black colleague, thereby no doubt causing hurt and offence,
does not prove that the image is racist. Any more than it would be
racist to put a plate of curry on the chair of an Indian colleague. Or a turban with Indian food in it. And then to say that these objects are inherently racist. So the motive is all important.
I think it is a pity that golliwogs can no longer be manufactured or
bought or sold for fear of being accused of racism.
I suppose you could ask a black person "if your child was given this as
a present would you feel hurt and offended?" and the answer would
probably depend on the individual. And in a similar way, if you said to
a Jewish person "if you hear people comparing Israel's government and
army to the Nazis does it make you hurt or offended?" some Jews would
say yes, others no, and it wouldn't be right to take a vote and make a decision on that basis.
On 16:43 30 Aug 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself
reflects the fact that general bias is often not recognised by
those who practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of
when i was growing up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were
standard comedy and Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were
perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own hand
up here) would have recognised that as the racism it actually
was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with
an agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid
racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can
remember because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still worth
asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as convictions of racial superiority were pretty much
universal in England at the time.
That is using the term "racist" with two shades of meaning and then conflating the two. First about someone who believes they can
distinguish between races and then secondly about someone who feels a
sense of (Western) racial superiority.
Golliwog dolls were invented in the late 19th century and it wouldn't
have been hard for Brits to feel a natural sense of superiority over sub-Saharan Africans (the prototype for Golliwogs) because at that time sub-Saharans were enslaving their own countrymen despite Wesern
prohibition of the practice. Also the majority of Africans had only
just started to acquire the rudiments of civilisation (such as the
wheel, writing, etc) from the arrival of European colonialists. These
two levels of civilisation were far from equal.
(See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated classes'
contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our poor, for
that matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of the time
mocked themselves in facile sketches and songs, and the gollywog was
a conscious parody of their jolly, simple-minded appearance. Not all
English people had moved on much by the 1950s.
As far as I can tell, the attitude of early audiences was not
particularly hateful towards people depicted by these "minstrels". It
was more amusement and perhaps ridicule at the differences in culture
and appearance.
On 31/08/2025 in message <mhiot2F191fU2@mid.individual.net> kat wrote:
On 30/08/2025 15:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself reflects >>>>>> the fact that general bias is often not recognised by those who
practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of when i was
growing
up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were standard comedy and >>>>>> Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were perfectly acceptable; few of us >>>>>> in those days (I put my own hand up here) would have recognised that >>>>>> as the racism it actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with an >>>>> agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just
that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid racism at
the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the
Robinson's Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the
Gollywog sign was racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My
sister had a Gollywog doll but nobody thought it represented a
coloured person (correct terminology at the time), it looked as much
like a person as a hefalump looked like an elephant or hippo looked
like a real one.
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
I didn't have a golliwog, but just saw them as anothet cuddly toy.
It seems strange to me though thatthe Robertson's golly should be seen
as racist as those little gollies were intelligent, talented and sporty.
Such a real insult - not.
Were people really so racist back then? My first doll was a black
one, which my father acquired from work where it had been a sample,
made from a type of plastic and jointed but could be fed and then wet
a nappy, and not leak at the joints. That would have been around
1952. Was it racist to make black baby dolls?
I suppose the answer might be not if they look like the real thing (as
far as a doll can) rather than a (malicious) caricature?
On 31 Aug 2025 at 13:06:12 BST, "Pamela"
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16:43 30 Aug 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:52:31 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com>
On 30/08/2025 03:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself
reflects the fact that general bias is often not recognised by
those who practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of
when i was growing up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes
were standard comedy and Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were
perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own
hand up here) would have recognised that as the racism it
actually was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those
with an agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of
12. It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to
avoid racism at the time.
Would it have been "racist" of my great-grandmother (whom I can
remember because she died when I was 9) to buy my grandmother a
golliwog doll in 1909 (when she - my grandmother - was nearly 2)?
I don't know that she ever did that, but the question is still
worth asking.
It would be pretty meaningless to state that she in particular was
racist, as convictions of racial superiority were pretty much
universal in England at the time.
That is using the term "racist" with two shades of meaning and then
conflating the two. First about someone who believes they can
distinguish between races and then secondly about someone who feels
a sense of (Western) racial superiority.
Golliwog dolls were invented in the late 19th century and it
wouldn't have been hard for Brits to feel a natural sense of
superiority over sub-Saharan Africans (the prototype for Golliwogs)
because at that time sub-Saharans were enslaving their own
countrymen despite Wesern prohibition of the practice. Also the
majority of Africans had only just started to acquire the rudiments
of civilisation (such as the wheel, writing, etc) from the arrival
of European colonialists. These two levels of civilisation were far
from equal.
(See any eugenics text of the time to describe the educated
classes' contempt for the intellectual and genetic qualities of our
poor, for that matter.) The largely imported "negro minstrels" of
the time mocked themselves in facile sketches and songs, and the
gollywog was a conscious parody of their jolly, simple-minded
appearance. Not all English people had moved on much by the 1950s.
As far as I can tell, the attitude of early audiences was not
particularly hateful towards people depicted by these "minstrels".
It was more amusement and perhaps ridicule at the differences in
culture and appearance.
Well quite so; and the golliwog was symbolic of that ridicule. QED?
On 2025-08-30, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/08/2025 in message <6334351263.83a29d21@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 30 Aug 2025 at 15:04:33 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
On 30/08/2025 10:15, Martin Harran wrote:
I think that one of the statements doming from Jon himself
reflects the fact that general bias is often not recognised by
those who practice it for what it really is. It reminds me of
when i was growing up when 'Rastus and Lulubelle" type jokes were
standard comedy and Gollywogs on a jar of marmalade were
perfectly acceptable; few of us in those days (I put my own hand
up here) would have recognised that as the racism it actually
was.
Quite, it wasn't racism at the time but now hijacked by those with
an agenda.
Of course it was racism at the time! I knew that at the age of 12.
It's just that many people felt no particular obligation to avoid
racism at the time.
That's interesting. I lived in SE4 and used to cycle past the
Robinson's Factory in Catford and it never crossed my mind that the
Gollywog sign was racist, in fact I doubt I had heard the word. My
sister had a Gollywog doll but nobody thought it represented a
coloured person (correct terminology at the time), it looked as much
like a person as a hefalump looked like an elephant or hippo looked
like a real one.
Were you black at the time?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
On 31/08/2025 in message <slrn10b7ojo.3cv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
My point is: why on earth do you think it not crossing your mind that >>>>it was racist is relevant to anything at all?
Because this thread is about racism.
Yes. You appear to have missed the point of my question.
It's a Ribbens point, i.e. it's flexible and will mean different things depending on the answer :-)
It seems to me you're nobody nowadays if you're not a victim.
What a bizarre and ridiculous thing to say.
You need to get out more, it's a very common sentiment nowadays.
You may take comfort in not being alone in saying bizarre and ridiculous >>>>things if you wish, but it doesn't stop it being so.
As I said it is a common sentiment so it's not me that's alone :-)
You appear to have misread what I said there.
A common result of your somewhat tortuous questions :-)
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes. You appear to have missed the point of my question.
It's a Ribbens point, i.e. it's flexible and will mean different things
depending on the answer :-)
ROFL