The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
My Mum came back from Italy yesterday, and she bought me back these sweets:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ paul.whiston/images/nougatine.gif
Is it just me, or is that an Indian Gollywog? I thought those things were highly offensive and were taken off all sorts of packaging years ago (marmalade, swets, etc). Not in Italy!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ paul.whiston/images/nougatine.gif
Is it just me, or is that an Indian Gollywog? I thought those things were highly offensive and were taken off all sorts of packaging years ago (marmalade, swets, etc). Not in Italy!
Page:
*taps fingers on desk*
Hmmmm...*fires up interwebulator*
Hmmmm...*fires up interwebulator*
oh, too slow on the old keyboard there...
Goatboy wrote:
> But part of social reform is to address the issues that cause
> disharmony, and by removing inherently offensive articles may remove
> some of the tension caused, surely?
> Just as I would no more have a White Supremist symbol on my products,
> I don't see why blacks should be faced with an image that has come to
> represent mockery, prejudice and bigotry.
I enjoy a good discussion, provided that those I'm "discussing" with are receptive, and show some basic signs of intelligence, but I'm not your "Belldandy" plaything. I've watched your sizeable spat, and to be frank, it's pathetic. For the love of god, agree to disagree.
I'll now await replies in the region of "denying again bell?" and "blah blah pinochet blah blah saddan blah blah WOMD" etc. I'm listening, no really I am. I'm just resting my eyes a little.
> But part of social reform is to address the issues that cause
> disharmony, and by removing inherently offensive articles may remove
> some of the tension caused, surely?
> Just as I would no more have a White Supremist symbol on my products,
> I don't see why blacks should be faced with an image that has come to
> represent mockery, prejudice and bigotry.
I enjoy a good discussion, provided that those I'm "discussing" with are receptive, and show some basic signs of intelligence, but I'm not your "Belldandy" plaything. I've watched your sizeable spat, and to be frank, it's pathetic. For the love of god, agree to disagree.
I'll now await replies in the region of "denying again bell?" and "blah blah pinochet blah blah saddan blah blah WOMD" etc. I'm listening, no really I am. I'm just resting my eyes a little.
Actually, I shall leave that one alone.
Twiddly - sorry for presuming you are Bell/Halo/Practical Magic.
My mistake
Twiddly - sorry for presuming you are Bell/Halo/Practical Magic.
My mistake
Ho Hum, I didn't mean that, I mean ....
It made me laugh, thats all.
It made me laugh, thats all.
*sigh*
Yeah, here we go again.
"Stop picking on newbies Goatboy"
My mistake....*cough*
Yeah, here we go again.
"Stop picking on newbies Goatboy"
My mistake....*cough*
It's funny how you always assume any literate newbie is Belldandy.
Twiddly wrote:
> But we aren't learning from them. We're just regurgitating the same
> mistakes over and over. The simple fact is that society contains an
> element of blithering idiots. It is social reform, not censoring
> "gollywogs" that will remove this element.
--
That may be the first thing I've actually agreed with you on Bell.
But you still need a ####ing good slap for your Kapo comments.
But part of social reform is to address the issues that cause disharmony, and by removing inherently offensive articles may remove some of the tension caused, surely?
Just as I would no more have a White Supremist symbol on my products, I don't see why blacks should be faced with an image that has come to represent mockery, prejudice and bigotry.
> But we aren't learning from them. We're just regurgitating the same
> mistakes over and over. The simple fact is that society contains an
> element of blithering idiots. It is social reform, not censoring
> "gollywogs" that will remove this element.
--
That may be the first thing I've actually agreed with you on Bell.
But you still need a ####ing good slap for your Kapo comments.
But part of social reform is to address the issues that cause disharmony, and by removing inherently offensive articles may remove some of the tension caused, surely?
Just as I would no more have a White Supremist symbol on my products, I don't see why blacks should be faced with an image that has come to represent mockery, prejudice and bigotry.
Twiddly wrote:
> I believe that if people fogot about the differences of te past, we
> would have much less need to censor ourselves going forward.
---
I would argue that far from forgetting about difference, lessons are learned and kept relevant so that it does not become passe and once again introduces itself.
But my point about the Minstrel show is that once it was thought perfectly acceptable and entertaining, was shown on tv and enjoyed by many. But this was in the era of "comedy black voices" by people like Jim Davidson and the "Bud-bud ding-ding" humour of 1970s sitcoms.
However times change, and people would no more show The Minstrel Show on tv than they would do what Sagacious suggested - and the two are not so far removed.
It's to do with the times, what is acceptable in one era is completely unacceptable in another.
Like your African-American comment of earlier - it's only in the past 10 years or so that blacks in America have been able to affect change. They were kept in segregation and not allowed the vote until the civil rights wars of the 1960s - and that's not even as if we're talking about 100years ago.
They have only recently been allowed to voice their unhappiness and anger at the way in which they have been portrayed in the media and in society as a whole.
Which is why you have The Mobos and Miss Black America - and you invariably get some idiot caucasian shouting "Why is a Miss White America racist then?"
Why? Because it's only been in the past 20-30 years that blacks have even been legally allowed to celebrate their colour and culture.
In my opinion, and seeing as I'm not black, it's not my place to decide whether I find the golliwog offensive. I'll listen to the voices of a people that have been beaten, lynched, murdered with impunity and kept near-slaves up until the 1960s. And if they say "hey, you know what? That's offensive" then I'd say it's a fair bet that it might be.
What may not appear offensive to you, as a white 15-30yr old Englishman, may appear horrifically offensive and cruel to someone who's race is being sneered at and made fun of.
> I believe that if people fogot about the differences of te past, we
> would have much less need to censor ourselves going forward.
---
I would argue that far from forgetting about difference, lessons are learned and kept relevant so that it does not become passe and once again introduces itself.
But my point about the Minstrel show is that once it was thought perfectly acceptable and entertaining, was shown on tv and enjoyed by many. But this was in the era of "comedy black voices" by people like Jim Davidson and the "Bud-bud ding-ding" humour of 1970s sitcoms.
However times change, and people would no more show The Minstrel Show on tv than they would do what Sagacious suggested - and the two are not so far removed.
It's to do with the times, what is acceptable in one era is completely unacceptable in another.
Like your African-American comment of earlier - it's only in the past 10 years or so that blacks in America have been able to affect change. They were kept in segregation and not allowed the vote until the civil rights wars of the 1960s - and that's not even as if we're talking about 100years ago.
They have only recently been allowed to voice their unhappiness and anger at the way in which they have been portrayed in the media and in society as a whole.
Which is why you have The Mobos and Miss Black America - and you invariably get some idiot caucasian shouting "Why is a Miss White America racist then?"
Why? Because it's only been in the past 20-30 years that blacks have even been legally allowed to celebrate their colour and culture.
In my opinion, and seeing as I'm not black, it's not my place to decide whether I find the golliwog offensive. I'll listen to the voices of a people that have been beaten, lynched, murdered with impunity and kept near-slaves up until the 1960s. And if they say "hey, you know what? That's offensive" then I'd say it's a fair bet that it might be.
What may not appear offensive to you, as a white 15-30yr old Englishman, may appear horrifically offensive and cruel to someone who's race is being sneered at and made fun of.
monkey_man wrote:
> But then wouldn't that leave the possibilty of it happening again?
> Mistakes are there to be learnt from.
But we aren't learning from them. We're just regurgitating the same mistakes over and over. The simple fact is that society contains an element of blithering idiots. It is social reform, not censoring "gollywogs" that will remove this element.
> But then wouldn't that leave the possibilty of it happening again?
> Mistakes are there to be learnt from.
But we aren't learning from them. We're just regurgitating the same mistakes over and over. The simple fact is that society contains an element of blithering idiots. It is social reform, not censoring "gollywogs" that will remove this element.
Page: