Gollygate 2: it’s not child’s play.

Golly and Cameron

One is a disgusting and unacceptable caricature. The other is a golliwog.

Husband and wife, Bill and Star Etheridge, were due to represent the Tory Party at the upcoming local elections. They also run their local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness. It has been clear for a while now that these two interests go together like chalk and cheese in David Cameron’s unconservative party.

The couple announced on facebook yesterday that they have resigned from the Party:

Forced Out Of The Conservative Party For Not Being Politically Correct

Until today, both myself and my wife were Conservative candidates for the May Council Elections.

I worked as a Campaign Executive in the run up to the last election and am a member of Dudley North and South associations. I am also Chairman of Claverley association.

We are openly Thatcherite and believe in an EU referendum. We also organise the local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness.

We received a letter today from Conservative Head office suspending us from the party as our activities with the campaign against PC could be considered to bring the Conservative party into disrepute. The main problem was that we had been pictured holding a toy Gollie

Our response was that a party which stifled free speech and was prepared to discipline members for holding a rag doll was no longer the Conservative party. We have both resigned with immediate effect.

We do not intend to be silenced and will increase our campaigning in favour of Freedom and Against Political Correctness.

This is why the couple simply had to be disciplined – they were photographed holding children’s dolls. Isn’t it heinous? Have you ever seen such an obvious and outrageous display of racial hatred? I feel faint. Pass the smelling salts, someone.

Star Etheridge and golliwog

Awww. Too cute for Cameron.

Pictures of her husband posing with Golly can be seen here. Be warned: they are just as graphic as the one above. I will take no responsibility if these images cause you to hyperventilate or go into spasms. Please ensure that there are no sharp edges round about you in case you pass out at the sight of more of these nauseating pictures.

This is a copy of the letter the couple received from the terrified Tory Party:

BY POST AND EMAIL

18th March 2011

Following a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Conservative Party, I am writing to advise you that your membership of the Party has been suspended for a period of 30 days from today’s date.

The Committee received a complaint relating to images which appeared on a Facebook website in which you were photographed with a toy “golly” in support of a campaign against political correctness.

The Committee is satisfied that the complaint raises serious issues that might bring the Party into disrepute and/or that you may be guilty of conduct not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party.

You have the right to apply in writing to the Committee for this suspension to be lifted.  The Committee may allow you to make oral representations on the matter.  The Committee may then lift or confirm the suspension, or vary the terms on which the suspension takes effect.

Yours sincerely

STEPHEN PHILLIPS

Secretary to the Disciplinary Committee

It’s the same old story. “We received a complaint”. Did you, Tories? Did you really?

And the Disciplinary Committee may allow the couple “to make oral representations on the matter.”

“Thank you, Massa. We so grateful, Massa.”

Eureka! It has just dawned on me why golliwogs are personae non gratae. It is because they remind us of slavery and we are the new slaves!

So who did complain, if anyone? In 2008, I wrote a post for my old site, thelabourparty.org, called Who is Pulling Gordon Brown’s Strings on the Road to a One World Government?

I began by writing,

Clearly, the leaders of the main Western nations are following a script given to them, which is the reason Western Europe, North America and Australia in particular, are self-destructing under the weight of ‘human rights’, and ‘equality’ legislation, where reality is the opposite of the rhetoric.

Gordon Brown, like his predecessor, has been given the task of continuing to enslave the British people by taking our rights and dumbing us down in the hope that we do not notice and are unable to change things.

Further down the post, I wrote,

Have we been brainwashed into believing that golliwogs are offensive?

Well, some African-American sisters have inaugurated the Black Doll Collectors Convention.

“Among Britt’s favorite dolls is her collections of golliwogs — the century-old “black-faced” rag dolls that are seen as racially offensive-caricatures to modern day sensibilities.”

But Britt says they created in childhood stories to endear rather than offend.

“They are part of my history and I embrace them. You have to learn from the past. You can’t hide from it,” she says.

So I guess the agenda is to make a mountain out of – well – nothing at all.

It is just something else whereby innocent people can be harassed by ‘officials’ obeying orders from corrupt bureaucrats and unthinking politicians who want us to feel threatened continually.

Black folk can love and cherish their golliwogs, but if anyone else does, it means they could be racist. Or something.

As I wrote on Bill Etheridge’s Facebook page, WELL DONE!! Best thing that could have happened to you, I reckon. The Tories, like Lab and Lib, are too corrupt and full of traitors to care anymore.

There was another Gollygate two years ago after Carol Thatcher was suspended by the BBC for referring to French tennis player, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, as “a golliwog” due to his hairstyle.

This wasn’t live on the telly, but in a private conversation in the green room with some of The One Show crew, including Adrian Chiles.

The Times wrote,

During a conversation about the Australian Open tennis tournament Thatcher used the word “golliwog” in what is understood to have been a reference to a player in the men’s competition.

A BBC insider said that Chiles, who also presents sports programmes, was “very shocked” by the remark and that others in the room told Thatcher that they considered her language offensive.

Could Miss Thatcher’s issue have been that she shares her mother’s love for the French? Is it also “racist” to have a dig at the French?

But friends of the journalist and author said that the remarks were made jokingly during a private conversation that took place after several drinks in the green room. They said that there had been no complaint at the time and that Thatcher only became aware of having caused potential offence 48 hours later when the BBC contacted her agent.

A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC considers any language of a racist nature wholly unacceptable. We have raised the issue with the individual concerned and are discussing it as a matter of urgency.”

A spokesman for Thatcher, who has been a regular contributor to The One Show for three years, said that the comment had been “an off-the-cuff remark made in jest”.

Her spokesman added: “Carol never intended any racist comment. She made a light aside about this tennis player and his similarity to the golliwog on the jampot when she was growing up. There’s no way, obviously, that she would condone any racist comment – we would refute that entirely. It would not be in her nature to do anything like that.”

If someone’s hair looks like a golliwog, why is it any more racist to say so than it is to say that a skinny blonde looks like Barbie? Someone might find it offensive, but that’s not the same as it being “racist.”

Jonathan Calder wrote at the time on Liberal England, about the view of morality that operates today in “vaguely liberal institutions” like the health service or the BBC – and now the Tory Party.

The first is that the individual is seen as weak and unable to defend his own interests, and at the same time as dangerous and in need of control. For both these reasons, modern workers are hedged in by all sorts of policies and codes of conduct that govern how they behave to their colleagues at work. At one time the left would have understood that this was a diminution of their freedom: now trade unions are enthusiastic advocates of the process.

Whether or not a particular word is offensive depends on many factors, notably the relationship between the participants in the conversation in which it is used. But officialdom insists on codes of conduct and allows no room for individual judgement.

And when Carol Thatcher used the g word, could it not have been left to those present to argue with her? Are they so weak that they need to be protected from any possibility of offence.

The second point is that these incidents show that the concept of a private life is rapidly being eroded. Would you like everything you say in private to an old friend to be repeated to the world? The need to avoid offence is now seen as overriding any concept of privacy.

The third point is that these incidents… show that we regard morality as chiefly a question of using the right language. In particular, it is a matter of avoiding the use of certain proscribed words.

I am sure we have all met people who imagine themselves on the left, use impeccably correct language but do not have a democratic bone in their bodies. Surely morality is about what one does as well as what one says?

The fourth point is that racism is just about the worst sin. Indeed, its wickedness sometimes seems to be the only tenet of modern morality.

Finally, it wouldn’t be an article about golliwogs without the author saying what a fond memory he has of them from his childhood, including the ones on the Robertson’s jam jars.

There, I’ve said it.

But seriously, we didn’t know what racism was growing up in the suburbs of Glasgow. Political correctness has created far more divisions than it has healed or possibly can ever heal because it is a vital component of the divide and rule/divide and conquer strategy of the ruling elite. I am convinced this is the reason they are so dedicated to it.

And as Liberal England says, this can also have the effect of making people think twice before saying anything, even to people they think are their friends. If folk feel offended, they should be left to sort it out themselves. It is what adults are supposed to do, not go crying to nanny state or nanny BBC (same thing). If the issue cannot be resolved amicably, then, and only then, is it reasonable to consider other options.

Top picture swiped from here.

New picture found from Lawson Narse:

Sooty and Friends

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Gollygate 2: it’s not child’s play.

  1. Glen says:

    growing up in 70s Yorkshire the only black faces i witnessed were the ones walking home from a shift down the pit i saved up the labels on the jam for my golliwog badges never once making a connection between them and our miners. as for being careful what tha sez as they say in Yorkshire call a spade a spade no doubt your PC readers will make a connection between that and racism, phone number given on request i don’t give a s*** about your narrow minded bigoted views

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Glen,

    Sometimes when people call a spade a spade, I need to put in asterisks ;)

    I’ll get my comment policy put up one of these days.

    I’m PC (polite chap).

    But yes, exactly. The golliwogs were just characters. A friend of mine collcted the badges and I was quite envious.

  3. Oh dear Stewart, don’t get me started on the ‘Conservative’ Party!

    I reckon the Etheridges are now eligible to join my club.

    How many more members can Project Cameron/Stonewall kick out of the ‘Conservative’ Party before there will be no members left – certainly no genuine conservatives?

    So many UKIP members are ex-Tory; will I won’t I join UKIP? It’s a tough one.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Richard,

    Yes, real conservatives are clearly not welcome anymore. What to do? I won’t join any party myself. I’ve seen them come and go and I think, “oh that one sounds good” then they turn bad. I have voted for UKIP in the past 2 or 3 elections, but I can’t see me joining.

    The best thing to do might be to get an army of the public together to arrest the treasonous politicians and as a result, all EU law is repealed??

  5. Yeah Stewart, nice idea but dream on…

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Right, so that’s two out of two so far. The movement has just doubled!

  7. Millions of British people share your views Stewart; you rightly raise the issue of how these people are ever to be mobilised so as to see their common sense prevail in British politics.

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    It needn’t take many.

  9. English Viking says:

    Christians should not soil themselves with politics.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Oliver Cromwell?

  11. English Viking says:

    Cromwell?

    What a dreadful traitor. A king-killer.

    God has got a thing about that.

    1 Samuel 26 vv 5-11.

    Your need to ditch your childhood pre-programming, and think.

  12. English Viking says:

    BTW,

    You can thank Cromwell for the diminution of the Monarchy, and the idolatry of Democracy.

    Not really much to shout about, is it?

  13. I disagree Viking. Christians ought to be engaged in our political system and political institutions. The problem in the UK today is that so few are. Given the parlous state of this nation, I find your remark “Christians should not soil themselves with politics” somewhat bizarre. It is true that politics is a very dirty business but Christians need to be in politics to be salt and light there.

  14. len says:

    We should pray for our Politicians(However difficult that might seem)

    But all are expected to pay homage to the’ new religion ‘ Secular Humanism and the’new moral code’Political Correctness.

  15. English Viking says:

    Carvath,

    The reason you find my Christian sentiments bizarre is because you are not following Christ.

    Do you have scriptural sanction for encouraging a system of government that is of men, by men and for men, with not the slightest regard for what God will have?

  16. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    Please stop modding me, or else ask me to leave.

  17. robbo says:

    I didn’t read the whole of your post. I got as as far as “Eureka! It has just dawned on me why golliwogs are personae non gratae. It is because they remind us of slavery and we are the new slaves!”

    Oh really, Stewart? We are the new slaves are we? And why? Because we can be suspended from membership of a political party for not following their rules? Are you aware of any of the history of slavery? You know the bit about people being kidnapped, sold as a commodity, exported to foreign countries and forced to work until you die?

    What if they had put on Nazi regalia and filmed themselves frog marching down the street, Stewart? Should that be enough to get them a slap on the wrist? Maybe a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink ,we can’t be seen to approve of such things” from the leader of their association?

  18. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    I see my little teaser got you going ;)

    Richard,

    Agreed. Scripture is full of political types.

    Len,

    Don’t you think they are past praying for? Was Lord Haw-Haw (Wm Joyce) worth praying for (other than for mercy for his soul).

  19. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Oh really, Stewart? We are the new slaves are we? And why?

    Because we hand over 40% of our earnings to the state, which then seeks to micromanage our lives and dictate every move we ought to make.

    How’s that for starters?

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    I’m not modding you out now. Because you broke the rules on the other thread, the software has decided to send your comments to the spam folder along with Robbo’s!

    It’s okay, I’m looking out for them until I can work out how to override it.

  21. robbo says:

    Oh yes, Stewart, silly me. Of course we are slaves.
    Yes, we have to pay tax, just like slaves.
    Yes, our lives are micromanaged. No … wait … just how exactly? What should I do now? Pretty much whatever I want as far as I can tell. Are you just sore that people call you a bigot and a homophobe?
    BTW how much are you earning to have to pay 40% tax? I thought I was on a decent wage but have only ever paid about 33%.

  22. English Viking says:

    Stewart,

    You have made a mistake. The amount of tax a man on 20,000 a year pays, if he is married, has a car, uses insurance companies and flies abroad once every 12 months is 78%.

    Income tax is 21%. National Insurance is 11%. VAT is 20%. There’s more than half, without considering Poll Tax ( at least 5% for the average man), Fuel duty (approximately 80% of the cost of fuel), Insurance tax, Airplane tax, Road Fund License, Energy tax (5%), TV tax (ridiculous), I could go on, but I am sick just looking at these figures.

    It is your Christian duty to evade taxation to the fullest extent.

    Please don’t ‘render unto Caesar me’, because if I was to do so, our so-called leaders would be six foot under.

  23. robbo says:

    Yeah E.V. ANARCHY IN THE UK!

  24. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo. Dear, sweet, innocent Robbo,

    You think the only tax we pay is income tax.

    That’s almost quaint!

  25. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    It’s not quite that bad, although you missed out fags and booze, so it’s possible some folk are paying more than 78%, but for most of us, it’s less. There are personal allowances and not everything is VATable.

    My 40% was perhaps a conservative estimate, though.

  26. robbo says:

    Guess what I did today.

    Well, I got up when I felt like it, had a shower and a shave because I felt like it, cycled into town and got some passport photos and bike pump I needed and a couple of CDs I wanted (death metal of course, Deicide’s latest release, To Hell With God and Bolt Thrower’s The IVth Crusade) got a coffee and a sandwich. Now I’m back home ready to roll up a chubby and relax in the garden for a while, listen to the sound of metal and retire off a few more brain cells to light duties.

    In short I managed to do whatever the hell wanted! Turns out for sure I am no Slave. Maybe you are though so I say ditch the religion and set yourself free!

  27. robbo says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here. Writing this comment immediately after my last. Won’t submit it until one hour after previous. If by then no-one has made a comment to the effect that all my brain cells are already on light duties I will go to church on Sunday. If yes I think the person who said it should have to to go to their local gay bar and talk man to man with some people there. If it is Stewart, I think he should have to do it in assless chaps.
    20 mins to go … excitement building!
    I really don’t want to have to go to church on Sunday.
    I really hope Stuart says it, even though there’s no way he’ll be game. Miserable git!
    E.V. wouldn’t do it either, he’s even more miserable. And anyway you have to pay tax on drinks in a gay bar. There’s no requirement to buy drinks though but he’d start a fight anyway. Probably firebomb the place. Suicide attack E.V., that’s the ticket! Just make sure it’s empty first.

  28. robbo says:

    CONFOUND IT!

  29. Stewart Cowan says:

    Which church are you going to, Robbo?

  30. robbo says:

    you suggest one

  31. robbo says:

    Damn and blast

  32. Stewart Cowan says:

    I don’t like recommending churches. I’ll leave it to you to choose.

  33. robbo says:

    Church of Scientology it is then!

  34. Stewart Cowan says:

    Leave your wallet and cheque book at home.

  35. Leave your wallet and cheque book at home.

    And your brain, for the purposes of any critical thinking…

    Just like any other religion, eh?

  36. robbo says:

    Typical bloody sweaty sock!

  37. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo.

    Give the Scientologists your bank details then. You’ll be having beans on toast every night. :P

  38. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    Why not try somewhere that teaches the precepts of the Bible just as they are, with The OT considered as an important fore-shadowing of the NT, and the NT considered final authority on all thing ecclesial?

    For example, if an institution teaches that certain sins are OK, in the name of love and tolerance, you know you are in the wrong place.

    Don’t give anybody any money, they should be far more interested in your soul than your cash, and unless you are a hypocritical, multi-millionaire with no regard for the poor, the two are not linked.

    Anywhere which is more concerned with entertaining the flesh than feeding the spirit is also a good sign that things are not as they should be. This might include 2 hour sessions of ‘praise and worship’, usually ‘led’ by a cat-a-wailing woman with almost no musical talent, incessantly jumping up and down in one spot, repeating the ‘chorus’ over and over and over again; the singing of songs that all basically sound the same and which are not hymns of adulation to God but merely a feel-good, ‘isn’t it great to be a conqueror’ kind of tosh. The use of any instrument that requires an amp is (usually) a dead giveaway. There will almost always be a ‘special man’, who is so close to God that God tells him things that He tells no-one else. If you are especially lucky, he may tell you what God thinks about you, and how best to go about running your private life, even though he does not order his in the same way. His advice will either be so indistinct it it useless, and so not easily proven wrong as it could mean anything, so obvious and self-evident that you are already doing it else totally at odds with scripture. There will, almost certainly, be the insinuation that, if you wish God’s blessing, you must ‘sow a seed’ (or some-such idiom) which translated means ‘give us cash because we are holy, and then God will get you a Rolls Royce/yacht/mansion if you regularly donate, or maybe just a little perk if it is a one-off.

    The appeal to the flesh may come in an entirely different, but then again, exactly the same form. It could be the stunning architecture, amazing pieces of art, including stained-glass windows and statues, men (or God forbid) women in special uniforms, who are again the only ones adept enough at hearing the voice of God and are to be obeyed without question. The worship is not the same, but again, is either in a language you don’t understand, as with the Gregorian stuff, or (to my mind, at least, lacking in spiritual vigour and actual worship of God, although not to same sickening degree as the former). There will be the ‘special’ ceremonies, which appear nowhere in scripture, and only the most obedient can participate in. There will be calls for cash, but this time Heaven could be a stake, not just a new Ferrari.

    The above are gross generalisations, obviously, but nevertheless, generally correct.

    Go somewhere with nothing to thrill the heart but Christ, and which requires nothing from you but a willingness to listen.

  39. Stewart Cowan says:

    Go somewhere with nothing to thrill the heart but Christ, and which requires nothing from you but a willingness to listen.

    That sounds good.

  40. Sky says:

    “We do not intend to be silenced and will increase our campaigning in favour of Freedom and Against Political Correctness.” – Sorry should every person who finds these dolls offensive then jump for joy that you are not silenced and have freedom against politicl correctness whilst insulting others?

    Freedoms and rights of individuals are just that however there is a fine line where your civil liberties stop and another begins.

    You are aware that many people find these dolls offensive however of the vast choice available you cant find another “toy” than one which could make another person deeply upset regrdless of whether you agree with their reasons for this or not?

    These are not just “childrens dolls”, whose children have these? Black children on a large part DO NOT use these dolls, atleast not in the western world and these dolls are favoured by white people, why is this?

    The dolls have quite vile associations, I know many-a-people who were called a golliwog and or wog as a racist slur whilst being beaten or taunted on the basis of their skin colour only.

    “Black folk can love and cherish their golliwogs, but if anyone else does, it means they could be racist. Or something.”, newflash we DO NOT lov nor cherish goliwogs, we dont have any.

    The fact th BNP started selling these from their website says it all really!

    The golliwog is a highly insulting stereotypical portrayal of a black person. The “wolly” hair, the ridiculously oversized eyes which were mimicked in the minstrel portrals of black people (not folk) who entrtained with their eyes wide open making eye popping faces and behaving like stupid, nincompoop bafoons.

    Let not forget during the slave trade black childrem were often given to the children of the plantation owners to play with like “toys”. Many of these children were then made to do whatever that child wanted and some were also raped by their masters.

    Many children do not know the link between these toys and their racist connections, but many do along with many parents who indeed bought these to reinforce just that. Its not as if their arent any other alternatives to play with/colect in the world and how on earth anyone could get pleasure out of something that causes someone else pain is shocking.

    “If someone’s hair looks like a golliwog, why is it any more racist to say so than it is to say that a skinny blonde looks like Barbie? Someone might find it offensive, but that’s not the same as it being “racist.”” What a shocking statement to make, from what I can recall I dont ever remeber someone getting their head smashed in whilst being called a Barbie doll, nor do I remember any songs which young black children sung about stringing up 10 white barbie girls and hanging them to death with a nuse on the tree.

    Nor have I ever come across an book from the 18th century where a black author referred to a white barbie doll as a “henous sight, the most white gnome of them all”.

    This is some of the imagery which was used to entertain white children over the last few centuries.

    Before putting your thoughts out there actually take some time to read the real history of the doll, how it was represented and why we dislike it so much. Because it is not “just a doll”.
    Many nations have been raped and striped bare by the British whilst they built their empire and prosperity on the blood of others. But thats the way of the world survival of the fitess, however dont expect me to celebrate and rejoice the recent revival of the golliwog. All that is asked is for people to understand the serious relationsh9ip between these dolls and their use to undermine and supress a community on ocassions that a bigot decides to use it as weapon to demean and insult another. And here because a minority finds it offensive we hear white people throwing up their arms in anger about having their civil liberties restricted.
    I wonder what the thousands of people laying in the bottom of the ocean feel about being thrown off the slave ship during its course to “lighten the load”?

    Just because it does not offend you does not mean it doesnt offend offend others, it does not offend you as Im quite sure you cannot recall a friend or family memeber of yours being beaten or spat at and being called a wog, I can! It does not offend you because it does not apply to you.
    God forbid we stop you carrying derogatory doll depicting a black person, however wil you find comfort without them.

  41. Darth Farquhar says:

    ” The amount of tax a man on 20,000 a year pays, if he is married, has a car, uses insurance companies and flies abroad once every 12 months is 78%.”

    good golly! (I say golly in the non dark* faced rag meaning of the work of course) *can’t say black

    that’s it, im dropping out of society and building a cabin in the woods right next to a river and grown my own veggies.

  42. Ginger Reid says:

    Re Gollies. Golly was “invented” by Florence Upton when she wrote stories c1900 about a doll that she had as a tot the she called Golliwogg. Like many small children, she did not speak well. As a trained linguist, I worked out what the original name of the doll probably was. First, if you look at her illustrations, Golly did not have fuzzy hair but swept back straight hair. (Not typical negroid hair, in fact). Second, he was a dark brown, not black. He was weating a striped jersey, bell bottom pants and a pea jacket. Golly was likely a sailor. Now to child speech. Typically many small children cannot say the sound which in English is written as “J”. This sound has two seperate points of articulation and is too complex for many little ones. Usually this is substituted with either a “D” or “G” sound. Even more children have a great deal of trouble with the sound of “R”. Most substitute a “W” sound. Finally, this English girl, living in New England would be said to speak what is commonly called an “R-less dialect, that is final Rs are spoken as “uh”. Put it all together and you have not Gollywog but Jolly Roger! Another nail in the coffin for the folk etymologists who talk about “Golly”–a slang term that a gently reared Victorian girl probably had never heard and certainly would not have used! Look up the origins of that word! and “Wog”–again a slang term that was not polite enough to be used by a young lady. Now what are these PC nuts on about? Ignorance is a really scary thing! Good luck folks. Hugs from Canada.

Leave a Reply to Glen Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>