Police are investigating a complaint about a mural at an Edinburgh primary school which features a golliwog.
The scene from Alice in Wonderland in Wardie Primary's assembly hall dates back to 1936 and was recently restored with a Heritage Lottery Fund.
A mother has lodged a complaint about the image describing it as racist.
Edinburgh City Council said it understands the offensiveness of the image but said it does not reflect the attitudes of the school.
An Edinburgh City Council spokesman said: "The Alice in Wonderland mural at Wardie Primary School was painted in 1936 and is of both historical and artistic importance as evidenced by the fact it recently received full Heritage Lottery Funding support to restore the work.
"While we understand the offensiveness of the image, it is in no way indicative of the attitudes of either the school or the council.
"Our equalities policies and approaches are robustly multi-cultural and anti-racist, promoting diversity and good relationships among pupils."
A Police Scotland spokesman said: "Police in Edinburgh have received a complaint in relation to a mural at a primary school in the Trinity area.
"Officers are now liaising with Edinburgh City Council education department with regards to this matter.
A coplaint? A bloody complaint?
Try complaining about something like a car being vandalised, or windows being smashed, and the police shake their heads and give you a form to fill out, one mention that some way, some how, "racism" may be involved and they jump like fleas.
A sure sign of society losing its grip.
The racism industry has a lot to answer for.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:29 pm
by Big RR
I'm not sure what the racist complaint is based on, but since you titled the thread "golly", I presume it is due to the black rag doll in the center picture (sometimes called a golliwog as I recall from a college course), and not the monkey on the lower left. I don't see the racism, overt or even implied; it's no more an indictment of black people than raggedy ann and andy are of white (or red haired) people. Unless that's intended to be a black person and not a doll; but I see nothing to suggest that (and don't recall any black characters, stereotyped or otherwise, in Alice in Wonderland.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:12 am
by Gob
You have to take into account that tha racism industry sees racism EVERYWHERE...
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:18 pm
by Gob
A black chef is suing her boss for racial harassment after he used the word 'Golliwog' in a conversation about Robertson's jam.
Denise Lindsay was working at student halls of residence in London when her manager Mark McAleese said the controversial word while discussing how the jam maker had removed its Golly character from labels.
In an Appeal Court test case the 45-year-old's lawyers are arguing that the word is inherently offensive to black people, and almost always discriminatory - no matter in what context it is used.
Her barrister Daniel Matovu, told the court: 'White people don’t get called "golliwogs". The word is an overtly racial comment.
'Golliwog cannot be interpreted in any other way.
'What the authorities make clear is that, when something is inherently discriminatory and clearly has racial overtones, there is no further debate.'
British jam manufacturers Robertson's started using the Golly character, dressed in a yellow waistcoat and bow tie, on its jars from 1910, with many consumers collecting pin badges featuring the figure.
However, the cartoon disappeared from labels in 2002 after decades of controversy, with jars of marmalade now featuring Paddington Bear.
Ms Lindsay was working as an assistant chef manager at the London School Of Economics’s student halls in Bloomsbury in February 2009 when Mr McAleese used the word while discussing 'the change to the label of Robertson’s jam,' the court heard.
Ms Lindsay, who lives in Clapham, south London, was upset by the comment, and an employment tribunal later found that what Mr McAleese said amounted to 'an isolated act of harassment'.
This was despite the fact that he had apologised and had not uttered the word for the 'purpose of violating her dignity'.
The tribunal ruled: 'We have concluded that, for a white manager to use the words "golliwog" and "golliwog jam" in the course of a conversation with a black Afro-Caribbean colleague is unwanted conduct.'
However, Ms Lindsay’s harassment claim was dismissed after the tribunal said it had been brought too late.
Whether that decision was justified is one of the issues now being considered by the Appeal Court judges.
Ms Lindsay’s other complaints of race discrimination were dismissed by the tribunal and, although she still has a victimisation claim extant, she is asking the court to re-evaluate the parts of her case that failed.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:30 pm
by Big RR
In an Appeal Court test case the 45-year-old's lawyers are arguing that the word is inherently offensive to black people, and almost always discriminatory - no matter in what context it is used.
'What the authorities make clear is that, when something is inherently discriminatory and clearly has racial overtones, there is no further debate.'
No further debate? Orwell had it right almost 70 years ago.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:51 pm
by Sue U
. . . Mr McAleese used the word while discussing 'the change to the label of Robertson’s jam,' the court heard.
Ms Lindsay, who lives in Clapham, south London, was upset by the comment, and an employment tribunal later found that what Mr McAleese said amounted to 'an isolated act of harassment'.
This was despite the fact that he had apologised and had not uttered the word for the 'purpose of violating her dignity'.
The tribunal ruled: 'We have concluded that, for a white manager to use the words "golliwog" and "golliwog jam" in the course of a conversation with a black Afro-Caribbean colleague is unwanted conduct.'
I consider myself pretty sensitive (sometimes maybe overly sensitive) to issues of race and racism. But without knowing more about the specifics of the comments made and the general use of "golliwog" in the UK (it's not a word anyone even knows, let alone uses, on this side of the pond), it's impossible to say anything about what this case may mean. But the employment tribunal obviously found that "he had apologised and had not uttered the word for the 'purpose of violating her dignity'."
Which raises the obvious issue, if something is said without the purpose of violating someone's dignity, how can it be offensive, let alone actionable?
Well, it makes sense only if you consider the word "golliwog" to be equivalent to "nigger" (at least as used here in the US and A). While I can understand a kitchen discussion about food labeling changes and marketing strategies and such, I can't imagine the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to refer to a product as "nigger jam." But apparently, given the abandon with which the UK press uses the word, "golliwog" does not implicate the same taboo as does "nigger." It seems to be something more approximating "Aunt Jemima," which undoubtedly was -- but given her pictorial, and our cultural, evolution is no longer, probably -- a marketing symbol evoking a racial stereotype. So while it's likely inappropriate to call someone "an Aunt Jemima," there is no obvious racial overtone to talking about a box of Aunt Jemima pancake mix. Although context (including intent) may be all-important.
Still, it seems like an awful lot of huffery over something stupid.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:09 pm
by Gob
He should have said; "Robertsons no longer use that doll based character, which was an affront to people of colour and derogatory by its very existence, on their labels." Oh, and apologised for the slave trade in the USA too.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:12 pm
by Big RR
sue, while I agree with you, I personally find the statement that there are some words which are inherently discriminatory and have racial overtones placing them beyond debate. Even if we look at a clearly offensive term, like "nigger" in the US as you pointed out, I can't see the context doesn't warrant consideration; one could, e.g., be referring to the word in a historical context, or perhaps reading Huckleberry Finn out loud and utter that word without any racist intent. Surely some people would take offense to any use of that word, and others to the use of it by a white person, but that does not make its use racist regardless of the circumstances (nor does it mean that we should not avoid using the word to prevent the offense). It seems to me that we are getting to the point where some, maybe even with the best intentions, are arguing that some words are so horrible that they must be stricken from the language, and I find that offensive.
Certainly, if you realize a word makes a person uncomfortable of offends him/her, you should avoid its use around them, but that is quite different from the idea of saying that its use is beyond debate.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:21 pm
by Sue U
Oh, I agree with you, Big RR. I have always said that words are just words, not inherently "good" or "bad," it's how you use them that matters. I think it's ridiculous to try to eradicate any particular word, or to declare certain words off-limits for some people. (Although I do recognize the obvious delight some white folks take in complaining, "Why can't I use the word 'nigger'?" Of course you can use it, if you don't mind being called a racist douchenozzle.)
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:28 pm
by Gob
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:32 pm
by Joe Guy
Her barrister Daniel Matovu, told the court: 'White people don’t get called "golliwogs". The word is an overtly racial comment.
White people don't get called "black Afro-Caribbean" either.
Better sue the tribunal!
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 10:48 pm
by Sue U
Gob wrote:
One of my favorites (obvs.) and proves the point.
I vividly remember her doing that song at the Rutgers University gym, around 1977 or 78. To this day, still the loudest show I have ever attended.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:14 pm
by dales
Anyone heard from medi lately?
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:26 pm
by Gob
Andrew was telling us about Medi's cunning plan to destroy this site. A cunning plan which he cooked up before Plan B was ever thought of. Ask him.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:32 pm
by Big RR
Sue--I'm not sure, but I might have been at that concert as well. I know I saw her while I was in grad school, and it was at the Rutgers gym in New Brunswick (I'm pretty sure). I don't recall it being all that loud, but most concerts were loud then; the loudest I recall was an Alice Cooper concert in 73, but then I was sitting right in front of a bank of speakers. My ears rang for a few days.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:58 pm
by Sue U
Big RR, it was either fall 77 or spring 78, at the gym in New Brunswick; I remember the weather was stunningly beautiful that day. The show closed with an encore performance of So You Want To Be A Rock And Roll Star, where Patti ended up with two guitars around her neck. It may have been particularly loud for me, as I was pretty far up front. I know my ears were ringing for two days after the show.
ETA:
Googling around, I found a site that apparently specializes as some kind of repository for rock concert ticket stubs, and it looks like the show we saw was May 23, 1978. She apparently didn't tour at all in 1977, which was when she broke her neck falling off a stage in Florida. Looking at the ticket stub list, I'm kinda surprised I went to New Brunswick to see her, since she was playing just a few days before at the Tower Theater, which in those days was a regular venue for me, living in Philly.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:47 pm
by Big RR
That must have been it then; I do recall it was a fun concert, but you have a much better recollection of the playlist.
Thanks for the memories.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:06 pm
by Sue U
Hahaha, I can remember a lot of that show in detail, and even the weather, but I can't remember how I got there or back, how I got the ticket or even who I went with. Funny what sticks and what doesn't after all these years.
Re: Golly!!
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:38 pm
by Guinevere
Ha, in '77/'78, I was going to Shaun Cassidy concerts -- my first!
