geoffrey_prime wrote:
I'm sorry I have to disagree, I don't want to shy away from using words because they "could" be linked to words which are offensive to some people/groups today.
I certainly agree that "wog" does not have a place in 2009 English vocabularly ...unless you are wanting to be offensive and therefore clearly it should be condemned.
"Golliwog", however, is a word to describe a character largely associated with childrens fiction...but, as we know, which has also been used as a term of racial abuse.
I believe we should preserve and use the word "Golliwog", in "nomal" parlance..but strictly condemn , when it is used in a racist and offensive way.
However, as I get to the end of writing this, I am wondering whether, people find the Minstral character itself offensive...so maybe my approach will never wash?
I don't agree, golliwog is a racist term, think about it. I certainly agree that "wog" does not have a place in 2009 English vocabularly ...unless you are wanting to be offensive and therefore clearly it should be condemned.
"Golliwog", however, is a word to describe a character largely associated with childrens fiction...but, as we know, which has also been used as a term of racial abuse.
I believe we should preserve and use the word "Golliwog", in "nomal" parlance..but strictly condemn , when it is used in a racist and offensive way.
However, as I get to the end of writing this, I am wondering whether, people find the Minstral character itself offensive...so maybe my approach will never wash?
