Posted by Heather on 11/2/2004, 9:33 pm, in reply to "pyseesdreen@yahoo.com"
203.51.144.35
I am not what you'd call a hard core "golly-lover", but I do love Enid Blyton's works and am a keen collector. I have some of her books containing gollies, and have no hesitation in reading them to my young children. I read these books as a child, and (along with other children) I never made any association between golliwogs and people of any description. To me they are toys, along with the rest of Blyton's toyland characters - clockwork mice, dolls, toy soldiers, etc. I don't really understand why these dolls are any different to black baby dolls which are now highly encouraged in our politically correct environment (in Australia, anyway) to be a part of the toyboxes of all child care centres (please let me stress I encourage this practice!). Why should the colour of a golly's knitted skin make any difference? Enid Blyton never made gollies of lower intelligence or less desirable than any other character, in fact policemen, wizards or goblins (portrayed by white male characters) were the ones that were always made fun of or made the "bad guys". Also, younger sisters and parents occasionally got a bit of a beating. I don't see anybody jumping up and down about these "discriminations".
I don't think we can sincerely attribute any of the world's racism or violence to the simple existence of the golliwog - why don't you find out how many of the KKK or related racist groups actually own golliwogs - my bet is zero. They would be more likely to avoid a lovable "black" doll.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread