Latest on MJJC

Someone Gave Janet an racist doll recently during her tour recently

MsCassieMollie

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,166
Points
0
Location
Valley Stream, New York
Someone Gave Janet an racist doll recently during her tour

http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2012/03/janet-jackson-asks-twitter-followers.html

I read somewhere that an Australian doll company gave it to her.

When Janet Jackson received a doll as a present during her recent tour, she wasn't totally sure what to make of it.

The singer has taken to her Twitter account to post a photo of the gift she is understood to have received during her Number Ones: Up Close and Personal series of shows. The present was a golliwog doll and Janet has asked her fans to comment on it.

"During the tour, I was given this doll named Maria. She was advertised as lifelike. How does Maria make you feel?," Janet wrote on Twitter alongside a photo of the doll.

The doll sparked angry reactions from her followers. "@JanetJackson I think the doll is in very poor taste. You''d think in 2012 people would have much more class and not be so ignorant," said one fan.

The Golliwog or golly doll is a rag doll with frizzy black hair and skin based on a character in children's books in the late 19th century.

The term golliwog has since been used as racial slur to black people.

Janet recently turned down the chance to appear as a judge on the US X Factor so she can concentrate on her tour and acting commitments. She was reportedly in talks for a slot on Simon Cowell''s show which panellists Paula Abdul and Nicole Scherzinger have now left.

Janet said in a statement to E! News she was "very flattered that X Factor let me know that I was being considered for next season, but it just wouldn''t be possible".

Britney Spears and George Clooney's girlfriend Stacy Keibler are also reportedly in talks to fill the empty judging spots.

Simon apparently plans to revamp the show by letting talent perform their own material in an effort to boost ratings.

janet-jackson-twitter1-450x477.png
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Now that is a scary doll. To be honest my friend had a golliwog doll when I was a child. Of course it was pretty--made of curly hair that was braided and dark brown cloth for the skin. There was no large bright red lips and scary eyes. This thing that Janet got looks more like a smiling fuzzy animal, like a bear, in human clothes. I wonder what was the intention of the person who gave her this thing? Did they see it as a compliment, or were they trying to make a racist comment? If it was me and I was concerned about it, I would ask the giver of the "gift," before taking it to twitter.

Cassie I thought Janet's tour was over?
 
I wouldnt say they are seen as racist anymore. Not in the uk anyway.they are highly collectable. they became famous as they promoted a marmalade brand the name of the doll was taken by racists and used but thats it
 
Last edited:
the problem is and what I think is racist is the fact the company is promoting this doll as "lifelike" knowing good well there is nothing life like about this doll,like petrarose said it looks more like a animal in dress
 
This is, I think, what its called *Black face* and it has a different meaning to everyone. But most might see this as an insult from the past… The fan's intention might not have been racist, but would've looked like it to others… I would like to think this was given with positive intentions… but… :scratch:


L.o.v.e.
Romi

EDIT: Info about *black face* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface
 
earthlyme said:

EDIT: Info about *black face* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface
Click to expand...

Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used in minstrel shows, and later vaudeville, in which performers create a stereotyped caricature of a black person.

**************************

Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrels not only played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide, but also in popularizing black culture. In some quarters, the caricatures that were the legacy of blackface persist to the present day and are a cause of ongoing controversy. Another view is that "blackface is a form of cross-dressing in which one puts on the insignias of a sex, class, or race that stands in binary opposition to one's own.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
earthlyme;3613466 said:
This is, I think, what its called *Black face* and it has a different meaning to everyone. But most might see this as an insult from the past… The fan's intention might not have been racist, but would've looked like it to others… I would like to think this was given with positive intentions… but… :scratch:


L.o.v.e.
Romi

Romi I agree, that is why I felt she should have asked the person who gave it to her before taking it to twitter where it can be blown into a big thing.
Click to expand...
 
strawberry45220 said:
the problem is and what I think is racist is the fact the company is promoting this doll as "lifelike" knowing good well there is nothing life like about this doll,like petrarose said it looks more like a animal in dress
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't see at as "lifelike" either but the doll is offensive to a lot of my people. I would be offended if someone gave me that doll.

Not all black people look like that...
 
The doll is cute imo. So what, the Simpsons do not look human either and many ppl adore them.
 
MsCassieMollie said:
Yeah I don't see at as "lifelike" either but the doll is offensive to a lot of my people. I would be offended if someone gave me that doll.

Not all black people look like that...
Click to expand...
I found that last comment kind of funny. So i have ask .. which ones do ? :lol:

Edit I didnt see your correction :)
 
kissybissy said:
The doll is cute imo. So what, the Simpsons do not look human either and many ppl adore them.
Click to expand...
Yes i think the doll is very cute myself ... Its just hard to know the intentionbehind the gift. -The doll is marketed to be a lifelike representation of a black person (which it clearly is NOT) It may have been innocent and that the person who gave the gift just though it was just cute with no ill intent in their heart.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
I wouldnt say they are seen as racist anymore. Not in the uk anyway.they are highly collectable. they became famous as they promoted a marmalade brand the name of the doll was taken by racists and used but thats it
Click to expand...

Elusive is right, here in the UK original dolls and collectables are valuable.

If you think about any ragdoll depicting any race does not look life like.
 
I think the only reason it could be seen as racist is because they said it is lifelike, which I do think is offensive. Whether Janet found it offensive or not I don't know but I can certainly see why it has offended people, I don't think it was given to Janet to intentionally offend her though.
 
I kinda feel sorry for the fan that gave this to her, I doubt very much if it was meant to offend although it is not something I would give a person of colour. We need a member from Oz to tell us where the Australians stand on such items, I suspect they are fairly laid back.
 
About the comment that some things do not look like people and people like them anyway, e.g., the Simpsons, people are not outraged because the thing does not look like a human, but because to some it is a stereotype of a particular race. Some here find it cute, and others like me, find the thing very scary. I still think, though, that Janet should have asked the giver about the gift before opening up this to a racial discussion. Let's think: suppose someone here gave someone a gift which they felt was adorable and came from their heart, and the person went and talked negative about it and asked others to comment on it, how would we think the giver would feel? Very crappy and hurt if you ask me. The internet is a useful tool, but it should not replace private dialog.
 
prettygirlmj said:
This gift doesn't look like it was meant to be malicious.
Click to expand...

It can't be if it is from a fan who loves her, but the thing is what is Janet's feelings about it. It seems she does not know how to take it.

PS: that laughing siggy looks so much likes Blanket's when he was laughing at the LA ceremony.
 
I don't think a fan gave this her , and if a fan did I can't see how they wouldn't be surprised that this could be offenssive somebody by it, but the way Gil was talking about it sounds like the Austrialian company gave this to her, and apprently this is the same doll Oprah asked stores to stop selling when she was in Australia, so to me it's seems like they are just looking for black celebrity to endorse them .
 
Last edited:
LastTear said:
Elusive is right, here in the UK original dolls and collectables are valuable.

If you think about any ragdoll depicting any race does not look life like.
Click to expand...
Well that's the UK. This is AMERICA. When you give a black American a doll like that in 2012, they'll beat the hell outta you. After all the drama we went thru since the 60's and the current Trayvon Martin case we thought we were past that...
 
19th century things belong in the 19th century, eh. Unless Janet was a collector of 19th century antiques and children's toys (and I assume she is not), I'd say the gift was inappropriate. Things like that certainly do have historical value (authentic period pieces), but along with that they also carry the prejudices of the time, so they do not make good gifts, I'd say, unless you knew the person you were giving it to collected such things. (Kind of like Third Reich or USSR historic items, odd and potentially offensive gifts for the regular person, but valuable to a collector of such things, such as myself).

Certainly seems like an odd thing to give to a pop star at a concert.

MsCassieMollie said:
Well that's the UK. This is AMERICA. When you give a black American a doll like that in 2012, they'll beat the hell outta you. After all the drama we went thru since the 60's and the current Trayvon Martin case we thought we were past that...
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is possible it was not known that the doll would offend. Other countries do have similar artifacts which do not carry the stigma they do in the U.S., so it is possible that the person who gave her the doll in question did not mean to cause offence and simply did not know such an item would be seen as offensive.

It doesn't justify it in any way, but what I'm trying to say is that the whole thing could have just been one giant unfortunate incident with no malicious intent on part of the person. The article itself doesn't delve into too much detail regarding the situation, so it's difficult to make a proper judgment.

The only thing I can say with certainty is that the incident is certainly odd. o_o
 
Last edited:
MsCassieMollie said:
Well that's the UK. This is AMERICA. When you give a black American a doll like that in 2012, they'll beat the hell outta you. After all the drama we went thru since the 60's and the current Trayvon Martin case we thought we were past that...
Click to expand...

All I said was that they are valuable now (in the UK) it would appear that they are still making them in Australia. The reason they are valuable is that they are no longer manufactured and have been removed from our marmalade jars so as not to offend.
Also please note my second post where I state that it is not a gift that I would have given.
 
In the uk, these 'gollywogs' although not illegal are definitely not found in any toyshop on the highstreet any more. If any shop attempt to sell them, there are protests and the police get involved. They are seen as offensive. If these toys exist, as last tear says they are just collectibles, vintage toys from the 50s/60s era.

The toys appeared as characters in the really popular 'noddy' series of children's books by enid blyton, written i think in the 40s/50s. The reprints now refer to them as teddybears, so they really are not seen as appropriate any more here.
 
Someone probably gave it to her with good intention, not knowing the history behind it. I don't know how someone could argue the racist undertone of the doll. They became popular around the time of the Minstrel shows, and in some books they're depicted in Minstrel clothing.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
In the uk, these 'gollywogs' although not illegal are definitely not found in any toyshop on the highstreet any more. If any shop attempt to sell them, there are protests and the police get involved. They are seen as offensive. If these toys exist, as last tear says they are just collectibles, vintage toys from the 50s/60s era.

The toys appeared as characters in the really popular 'noddy' series of children's books by enid blyton, written i think in the 40s/50s. The reprints now refer to them as teddybears, so they really are not seen as appropriate any more here.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're illegal anywhere. Things like that can be found in the U.S. too, usually at flea markets and the like. But yes, they are obviously not appropriate gifts for the regular person. Admittedly I can't understand why people would want to collect them, though, since that's not my cup of tea, but anyway, they're not illegal to sell, is my point.
 
Not all golliwogs look horrific and have over exaggerated features, e.g., mouth. Maybe that is why some people find them attractive. As I said before, I have seen some very attractive ones. Well I hope Janet has cleared up this drama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top