Tintin book deemed as 'racist'. Goes on trial.

What should be decided on this book's availability?


  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .

Takhisis

¡Patria y vida!
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
59,187
Location
exploring
Erm, so...
Spoiler :

Tintin's adventures in Congo goes on trial in Belgium



Tintin in the Congo is racist, ignorant and offensive, Congolese campaigner tells Belgian court

A Congolese man living in Belgium is trying to have Tintin in the Congo banned in the boy reporter's native country, almost 80 years after Tintin first donned his pith helmet and headed for Africa to patronise its people, slaughter its animals, and spark an undying controversy.

Tintin and his creator, the cartoonist Hergé, who launched the strip in black and white in the Petit Vingtieme newspaper in 1930, are national heroes in Belgium, where a multimillion-euro museum celebrates his adventures and the 2m books still sold every year in 150 languages.

However, Bienvenu Mbutu Mondondo, who has been campaigning for years to have the book removed from Belgian shops, says its depiction of native Africans – including a scene where a black woman bows before Tintin exclaiming "White man very great. White mister is big juju man!" – is ignorant and offensive, and he has applied to the Belgian courts to have it banned.

"It makes people think that blacks have not evolved," he said.

The verdict, originally expected today, has now been delayed until next week.

Hergé redrew the book for a colour edition in the 1940s and made many changes, including excising a scene where Tintin killed an elephant by blowing it up with dynamite. He also dropped all references to the "Belgian Congo", and changed a geography lesson Tintin gave about Belgium to a maths lesson. Despite the changes, the book remains equally offensive to race equality and many animal rights campaigners.

Michael Farr, Hergé's biographer, who spoke often with him about the book, says that the artist later regretted his depiction of the Congolese, but denied it was racist, merely reflecting the way Africa was portrayed in the 1930s.

There was a move to ban the book three years ago in Britain, sparked by a complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality. This led to its being sold with a warning that some might find its contents offensive, an over-16s reccommendation on some websites, and its removal in some shops from the children's section to the adult graphic novels shelves. The result was that sales rocketed, climbing from 4,343 place to fifth on the Amazon bestseller list.

The Brooklyn Public Library has placed it in its reserve collection, viewable only by appointment.

Several other adventures of Tintin, his faithful dog Snowy, the identical non-twin detectives Thomson and Thompson, and the foul-mouthed Captain Haddock (always in English, Hergé said, because it was the name "of a sad English fish") have hit the rocks of contemporary sensibilities and politics.

Hergé was accused of Nazi sympathies because he continued working when his newspaper was taken over in the second world war, and of antisemitism because of the depiction of Jews in some cartoon strips. The first Chinese translation of Tintin in Tibet, subsequently withdrawn, was titled at the insistence of the authorities, Tintin in China's Tibet.
What do you think about this? Should the book be banned? Restricted? No limits on it at all?
I, for one, would place it as restricted and with an explicit warning. No sales to children and that's it.

Vote and discuss.

EDIT:i've just remembered I got some of his books in Spanish when I used to live in Spain, and I remember asking what 'hacer el indio' meant. It tured out to mean 'make a fool of yourself' as in the politer expression 'hacer el tonto' (indio=tonto; indio means a Native American, former subjects of the Spanish Empire).
 
I haven't read that book, sorry. But I never said to ban, just not sell it to children.
 
Ha, Chezzy beat me to it! Thats exactly what I was about to say.

Is Heart of Darkness next?
 
Looks like our Celtic stalinists voted for its restriction...:mischief:
 
@Patroklos: do you think children should be able to read it just like that? Stereotype 'dumb niggah slaves' and the rest?

@Quackers: please, you still go on about reabsorbing Ireland back into the UK... discuss the point of this thread.
 
@Patroklos: do you think children should be able to read it just like that? Stereotype 'dumb niggah slaves' and the rest?

It would be constructive to their understanding of the world to be exposed to incorrect points of view; the sooner the better, lest they discover them in young adulthood and think themselves to be uncovering the hidden truth.
 
Yes. Because god forbid children learn how to think critically.
It would be constructive to their understanding of the world to be exposed to incorrect points of view; the sooner the better, lest they discover them in young adulthood and think themselves to be uncovering the hidden truth.
Well, yes, but it's still not a children's book. I take it that you two have read the book in question, right?
btw I've edited the OP.
 
Well, yes, but it's still not a children's book. I take it that you two have read the book in question, right?
btw I've edited the OP.

Do you mean Tintin or Huckleberry Finn? I've read the latter, and while I've never read Tintin, I watched the cartoon as a kid back in the day, and I feel this gives me an authoritative opinion on the subject regardless of any facts to the contrary.
 
What do you think about this? Should the book be banned? Restricted? No limits on it at all?
I, for one, would place it as restricted and with an explicit warning. No sales to children and that's it.

If so, then we should also ban and/or restrict access to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for its period-reflection of attitudes towards Blacks.

Ouch. The resident Commie made a good point about how this is a bad idea.

Is Heart of Darkness next?

Speaking from personal example, I don't think banning that would go over well with young people: they lose a quick book to read when their huge book report comes due!

---

This just furthers my evidence of how minorities seem to be overly-sensitive - my sister-in-law quit Twitter simply because my uncle made a Mexican joke about her even though she was Puerto Rican; poor move perhaps on his part, but no reason to quit talking to ALL family - about everything.

I once jokingly told a friend "we do not negotiate with terrorists" when he was playfully threatening me, and he got all angsty and angry about it simply because I guess the fact he's Iranian gives him extra rights to whine about everything. Once again, a misunderstanding, but no need to FLIP OUT. And then another friend apologises for him and says that since I'm white, I don't understand racism and thus can't understand my friend. :rolleyes: The apologist also likes to constantly talk about the plight of minorities based solely on skin-color, never mind the fact some whites are also poor and thus have the same damned plight. Reverse racism FTW.

/ramble

Back on topic, no, no restrictions should be imposed. I understand it's common practice in Europe to ban things simply because it isn't agreeable(Germany and Nazi symbols, for example), but there is no need to ban a book simply because some might misinterpret it. This is a problem with the people(and possibly the publicly-funded education system), and not the book.

Freedom of speech is more important than making sure some people's feelings aren't hurt. If you dislike a book so much, campaign to ban it from individual bookstores and encourage people to not read it; the government has no business in such matters. The fact people are so complacent with the government being able to censor, partially or wholly, works based on being "sensitive" is actually fairly terrifying...

Or in more eloquent terms:

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." - Ronald Reagan
 
No it should not be banned or restricted in any way.

Its pretty racist though.
 
Whats next, banning the Bible?
 
Not Tintin! I have so many great memories of my father reading those to me as a kid. On reflection, sure it could be racist, but as other have said, no more racist than other books such as Huck Finn and Heart of Darkness are.
 
No it should not be banned or restricted in any way.

Its pretty racist though.

It's good to see some people still have common sense, even in that cancerous, socialist mass that is Europe.

Whats next, banning the Bible?

Well, knowing the "protect everybody's feelings unless they're conservative" Left, I really wouldn't be surprised if they moved onto this. I may not be religious, but I respect the inspiration religion was for our values, and freedom of religion, and I shall fight against those who would seek to eliminate it.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
It's pretty racist, and it should be sold, but not as a normal children's book, but as a collector's item.
 
If there's a book that should be banned, that's the one.

No, that would be the Koran, I'm afraid...

People like to draw comparisons, but I'd say radical Islam is far more dangerous than radical Christianity.

Now you could factor in all the violence of Christianity in days long since passed, but that was then. We're talking about now.
 
No, that would be the Koran, I'm afraid...

People like to draw comparisons, but I'd say radical Islam is far more dangerous than radical Christianity.

Now you could factor in all the violence of Christianity in days long since passed, but that was then. We're talking about now.

I'd recommend starting another thread for this... wouldn't wanna thread jack:)
 
Back
Top Bottom