Is it racist?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by subjunctivehistorian

Well if they are offended then I really do think they are either overly sensitive or have a chip on their shoulder about being black. The nursery rhyme merely describes the black sheep, whose wool happens to be black. It's not saying that having black wool is a bad thing. It's not joyfully describing a black sheep being punished by white sheep. It's merely describing its colour. If that causes offence, then you're being over sensitive. That would be like me being offended by the song 'white horse' by Taylor Swift. It's just ridiculous.

Some people got it into their heads that the song is about slavery in America. It isn't, it was originally an old English protest song against wool taxation. Nothing to do with black people or American slavery.

Reply 21

Blue_Mason

Original post by subjunctivehistorian

Nothing to do with me, but all I am saying if a group of people do find it to be offensive, then so be it, they have the right to protest and speak out.
Maybe the original poem was offensive.
Is golly wog not offensive?

Reply 22

subjunctivehistorian

Original post by Wōden

Yeah, I know, I did for my EPQ about how slavery has been represented (or perceived to be represented) in literature and art. It's really interesting how the perceived origins differ so much from the actual meaning of the song :biggrin:

Reply 23

subjunctivehistorian

Original post by Blue_Mason

All I am saying is that almost everything under the sun is deemed racist these days. Kinda the same as sexism. Heaven forbid a man holds the door open for a women - despite this just being a polite gesture, women often claim that this is a sign of oppression.

Gollywogs are rarely sold anymore, because people accused them of being racist caricatures.

Reply 24

Blue_Mason

Original post by subjunctivehistorian

And?
I am glad that people can speak out and protest, and that we can discuss and understand.
I would agree that sexism is non existent.
Were those people wrong to find golly wogs to be racist?

Reply 25

It's****ingWOODY

Original post by Multiculturalism

Well then its the fault of the whitewashing and colorist media and fashion industries.

Is your username meant to be ironic???

Reply 26

JamesN88

Are you discriminating against animals if you only want to mate with your own species?

Maybe if you're a sheep shagger then you're discriminating against reptiles?

Reply 27

Socychoictraphy

Original post by Multiculturalism

Well then its the fault of the whitewashing and colorist media and fashion industries.

Then explain black people who are attracted solely to black people

Reply 28

username2379539

Original post by Blue_Mason

To not find one person of another race to be attractive?

YES

Reply 29

Blue_Mason

Original post by JamesN88

Are you discriminating against animals if you only want to mate with your own species?

Maybe if you're a sheep shagger then you're discriminating against reptiles?

What?

Reply 30

KloppOClock

Original post by Blue_Mason

What?

He said: "Are you discriminating against animals if you only want to mate with your own species?

Maybe if you're a sheep shagger then you're discriminating against reptiles?"

Reply 31

Blue_Mason

Original post by KloppOClock

He said: "Are you discriminating against animals if you only want to mate with your own species?

Maybe if you're a sheep shagger then you're discriminating against reptiles?"

Bit extreme

Reply 32

KloppOClock

Original post by Blue_Mason

Bit extreme

It was a hyperbole, but his general point still stands.

Reply 33

Sapz_9

Having personal preference is not racist :s-smilie:

attraction is something unique to yourself and by not feeling attracted to a certain race you are not thinking another race is superior to another, you are just not attracted to their feautres etc.

It's like saying you are not attracted to white girls with blonde hair, maybe it's because you prefer bruntettes and dark hair but it doesn't mean you think you are better than white blonde girls, you just don't feel any sexual attraction to them.

Reply 34

subjunctivehistorian

Original post by Blue_Mason

And?
I am glad that people can speak out and protest, and that we can discuss and understand.
I would agree that sexism is non existent.
Were those people wrong to find golly wogs to be racist?

There's no 'right' or 'wrong' about it. I can understand why they would be deemed racist more thn I can understand baa baa black sheep. I feel that it's not the doll itself which was racist, but the reactions it provoked at the time, a period of history steeped in racial stereotyping. Ultimately, its as racist as a doll with a white face and red lips. But I can understand the racist associations.

Reply 35

subjunctivehistorian

Original post by JamesN88

Are you discriminating against animals if you only want to mate with your own species?

Maybe if you're a sheep shagger then you're discriminating against reptiles?

this post just sums up the ridiculousness of the whole claim that not finding a certain race attractive is racist. perfect

Reply 36

User2650803

Original post by Blue_Mason

To not find one person of another race to be attractive?

Of course not. It's called having a type!

Reply 37

bullseye1

Original post by Multiculturalism

Its racial discrimination

Why do you think one race will be a better partner than the other?

You can't help who you're physically attracted to, so it isn't discrimination. People from different races have specific looks and aesthetics, and you can't force yourself to be attracted to them if you're not. In any healthy relationship, physical attraction between partners is essential, so the reason they think one person from one race will be a better partner for them is because they are attracted to them and not to a person of another race, through no fault of their own.