I feel like when I see these shirts (the one on the left just looks weird to me, the one on the right looks offensive), I know that they're wrong, but I wouldn't necessarily recognize it as a "golly". Here is a clip from The Sun:LEADING fashion brand Zara was slammed last night for selling a T-shirt featuring a racist “golly” picture.
The offensive top was on the shelves just two weeks after the Spanish-owned chain was blasted for stocking a handbag emblazoned with Nazi swastikas.
Student Lisa O’Well, 25, spotted the golly while shopping in a London branch of the trendy high street chain.
A white T-shirt had a caricature of a black girl with bulging white eyes and menacing teeth.
Lisa, who is black, said: “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The character on the front is clearly a golly. It’s amazing anybody could think this design was acceptable in 2007. This sort of thing should be confined to the distant past.”
When horrified Lisa pointed out the top to staff in the Knightsbridge store, they just asked her: “Do you want to buy one?”
I personally was a little unclear on what makes something a golly (short for golliwogg) or not, but I do know that it reminded me of blackface right off the bat. So, I looked it up on Wikipedia, gotta love it, and found the article really interesting: Golliwogg.
So what do you guys think? Is it a "cherished cultural artifact" or an "offensive relic of racism". And who would ever want to wear that shirt being that it's not cute and obviously offensive, at least to some people. And on top of that, what the *&%$ is wrong with Zara!? Twice in one week!
3 comments:
On Zara's strike dos: could this be a publicity stunt?
I had to google "golly" myself and wikipedia came to my rescue as well. Maybe Brooke is right, this might be a cheap and slimy way to get publicity. I nver even heard of this company before 2 wks ago.... I wonder how much their sales have increased since then....
As far as the British are concerned, the Golliwog is both a "cherished cultural artifact" and an "offensive relic of racism". The shirt was marketed in the UK by a Spanish based company, Zara - perhaps as an attempt for publicity, perhaps an attempt to reintroduce a once popular UK icon, and/or perhaps a social critique. The Upton stories from which the character is based were once popular in the UK and the character was for generations the mascot of a popular UK preserves company, Robertson & Sons until 1988. The term Golliwog and its alleged derivative wog have become negative racial epithets in the UK. So I think both readings are valid.
Post a Comment