Censorship or rewriting ?

Ah, back to the gender critical hysteria.

TiggyW

I had a soft toy golliwog as a child in the 50s - I never associated it with a person. To me, it was just a cuddly doll.

I was thinking yesterday how I would explain a golliwog to my DGS. How would I explain that these ugly things were meant to represent Black people? And what that would do to him, knowing that was how brown skinned people were seen?

And if that sounds hyperbolic, he came home from school (he's 4) a few weeks ago, talking about skin colour. So clearly, it is a topic of conversation with children there, because he has never noticed the different shades of colour in his family before.

We don't go in a local shop because it has golliwogs on the wall.

Just because white people are comfortable with these racist toys, doesn't mean people of colour are. For obvious reasons.

My golliwog wasn't ugly, he was gorgeous, a very elegant gentleman, and I think had rabbit fur for hair 😲

For some reason unfathomable only to a six year old, I thought he was from Siam (now Thailand).
Siam may have been in the news at the time, can't remember now.

The publishers are not going to bowlderise RD’s books they have announced that they will be printed in their original format.

Apologies just seen this has already been posted

GrannyGravy13

The publishers are not going to bowlderise RD’s books they have announced that they will be printed in their original format.

They are continuing to publish both the edited versions and the original versions of the books.
Both will be available

The Daily Express is claiming that the u turn was all down to Camilla

I can't thin of a better publicity stunt than to announce something you know will give rise to much whataboutery and then when it happens announce you are re publishing the "originals".

Chink chink money in the bank. The Dahl Trust and the publishers knew exactly what they were doing

Yes, good point Wyllow
It’s like when Heinz announce that they are going to get rid of Salad Cream (they seem to do this every decade or so)

Wyllow3

I can't thin of a better publicity stunt than to announce something you know will give rise to much whataboutery and then when it happens announce you are re publishing the "originals".

Chink chink money in the bank. The Dahl Trust and the publishers knew exactly what they were doing

Agreed. It's very clever, as they'll get one set buying 'the originals' because they think they are being bossed around by 'wokery', and another set buying the adapted ones so their children don't learn turns of phrase that might upset others.

To be honest, I've heard a lot of talk about this since the news broke, and offline I don't think I've heard anyone who doesn't think that fat was changed to enormous and the tractors were originally 'black', not 'murderously black-looking'. It's amazing how much misinformation is out there, and how important an understanding of the difference between one set of changes and the other has on the meaning and/or intention.

GagaJo

TiggyW

I had a soft toy golliwog as a child in the 50s - I never associated it with a person. To me, it was just a cuddly doll.

I was thinking yesterday how I would explain a golliwog to my DGS. How would I explain that these ugly things were meant to represent Black people? And what that would do to him, knowing that was how brown skinned people were seen?

And if that sounds hyperbolic, he came home from school (he's 4) a few weeks ago, talking about skin colour. So clearly, it is a topic of conversation with children there, because he has never noticed the different shades of colour in his family before.

We don't go in a local shop because it has golliwogs on the wall.

Just because white people are comfortable with these racist toys, doesn't mean people of colour are. For obvious reasons.

Can you still by golliwogs? I thought that they'd disappeared a long time ago,

I dont think my grandchildren enjoyment of the books would be changed one jot by the changes, frankly. they are still massively entertaining and the illustrations amazing. I also have not seen a single example of a proposed change that is not benign.

We may argue about fat and enormous but that doesn't make any difference as to the meaning the children will get, and it it helps just a few children then so much the better.

"Fat" now unfortunately is not simply descriptive, it is used as a term of abuse and mockery. Will it make a difference? I don't honestly know, but it's an honest effort.

BTW, one of the targets of change was the book "The Witches"
I quote from a Mirror article:

"The book reads: "I do not wish to speak badly about women. Most women are lovely. But the fact remains that all witches are women. There is no such thing as a male witch.
"On the other hand, a ghoul is always a male. So indeed is a barghest. Both are dangerous. But neither of them is half as dangerous as a real witch."

I agree with a tweaking of the last sentence and anything else in the book along the same lines.

Its in some men's minds that women are inherently more "dangerous": the reality for girls and women is that men are far more dangerous taking stats as a whole:

I'd rather buy my Granddaughter the book of Moana, which she adores (its a film where Moana, who is to become a leader of a tribe, bravely sets out to save her people (and an environment).