Now we tiptoe carefully into the area of the derogatory and offensive – those being the words used by the Oxford to label ‘wog’. So please understand that I am not using this word – I am referring to it (in order to explain it). It’s first recorded by the Oxford from 1921 meaning ‘a non-white person.’ Later (from 1966) it’s recorded in Australia to mean ‘an immigrant from southern Europe or the Middle East.’ Nowadays the only people who can get away with using it are people it applies to. So, a bunch of Lebanese-Australian actors and comedians can do a show called Wogs Out of Work because they are… but we can’t because we are not! (Does that make sense?) The reason I raise this is because of the myths surrounding the origins of ‘wog.’ I had a radio caller insist it was because labourers employed on government construction projects, during the period of British rule in Egypt, wore jackets emblazoned with the letters W-O-G meaning ‘working on government service.’ No. Never happened. Another urban myth. Yet another claims the letters W-O-G stand for ‘worthy (or wily) oriental gentleman.’ No. Also not true. There is no record of any such expression being used. So, where does it come from? It is an abbreviation of ‘golliwog’ – a name invented for a black-faced doll with a shock of fuzzy hair. The word ‘golliwog’ was coined by American children’s author Florence Kate Upton in her book The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwog. She probably adapted the word from an old children’s nickname for a tadpole ‘pollywog’.’ So ‘wog’ is a shortened form of ‘golliwog’ and all the other stories (however ingenious) are just plain wrong. By the way ‘golliwog’, both toy and word, is now also offensive and derogatory!