«
»

online pharmacy price comparison

I have been aware of the Gollywog doll and its history for a number of years now. My doll was ordered from England, where they are still made and are popular, apparently. At the time I sent for one, I did not realize that there were any racial slurs attached to it. I’m not sure how I might have missed that fact. The doll’s image is still located in one of my related files online: .

This morning, I stumbled upon three interesting links:

1)

2) A quilt named “,” which won a blue ribbon at the Pacific International Quilt Festival and has the same design as the “Gollyville 1 kit” sold by

3)

The quilt, #1028, that won a prize for “Best Hand Workmanship” was made by Ruth DeBord and Wendy Reyes. The quilt was made from a kit that originated in Australia where Golliwog dolls are popular and are not meant to be derisive. To those who speak the King’s English, a “wog” is anyone of color: an Egyptian, an Indian, etc. You get the picture.

I would like you to think about this topic. When we make drawn caricatures or dolls that overexaggerate the physical characteristics of other humans, such as the emphasis on large lips, or curly hair, or skin color, does that always constitute racism or just poor taste? When, if ever, is that practice acceptable?

A second question is this: Should quilt judges award blue ribbons to quilts that are done perfectly, but carry a message that is contrary to acceptable and ethical social responsibility? In other words, is perfect appliqué more important than the message a quilt conveys, one that could be offensive to many others?

These are just words for thought on this dreary, rainy day. You would probably enjoy reading the file I prepared about , as well as the opinions of Dr. David Pilgrim, an African-American who finds many (most?) of these kinds of collectibles to be degrading and humiliating.

Touchy subject, I know. All comments welcome.

Patricia Cummings,
Quilter’s Muse Publications

Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am and is filed under , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

online pharmacy price comparison

  1. says:

    Thank you for your thoughts. In this free society, I think it is important to discuss matters of this type. Personally, I was more shocked that a kit quilt would win a major exhibition, but then again, wondered if the makers of the kit were the ones who entered the quilt in the show.

    Life is full of intrigues. Racial prejudice is alive and well, but so is discrimination against anyone who is “different,” whether that person is a teenager, someone who thinks his own political thoughts, is of another religion, or even parts his/her hair a different way. We can find all kinds of reasons to hate other people and make fun of them.

    I don’t know how this quilt could NOT be considered social commentary. After all, it did not spring out of a vacuum but from a long history of this “Golliwog” doll image and all that it connotes.

    Yet, sometimes, it is nice to turn our backs on what appears to be racism and just appreciate someone’s efforts, taking them at face value, and with a sort of innocence that does not bring our own racial awareness of past discriminations to the forefront.

    Thank you for your thoughtful note. ~Pat~

  2. says:

    In general, I think racial caricatures are a tool of racism. (I say “in general”, but I really can’t think of any exceptions.)

    The Gollyville One quilt is interesting for many reasons, one of which is its fundamentally different representations of blacks and whites. Note that the white figure, a little girl, is depicted in a more-or-less straightforward manner. She’s fairly realistic, if simplified.

    The black figures, however, aren’t realistic, simplified depictions of humans who happen to have dark skin. They’re broadly drawn caricatures with “darky iconography” harking back to blackface minstrels: wild wooly hair, thick red lips, jet black skin. There’s even a mammy figure wandering around in the scene.

    The contrast between the two styles is jarring and, I think, very telling.

    The Gollyville story associated with the quilt kit says “These friendly souls were happy-go-lucky in nature, some were even devilish in spirit, but they were mostly a kind-hearted race who loved having a good time.” This strikes me as being just a short step from suggesting they had natural rhythm and loved to dance. Later the story mentions “mammy’s” and “piccaninny’s” coming to live in Gollyville, a cringe-inducing business at best.

    When I first saw this quilt, I assumed that it was some form of commentary on the thinly-disguised racism that is part of our society. Perhaps the judges did too, or simply didn’t have time to think about it in the very brief time they have to look at each quilt.

    Unfortunately, I now think that if there was commentary, it was unintentional and not of the nature I originally had in mind.