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

[aneeshm]

There are plenty of things fit to print, but to my mind this is not one of them.

And in my mind, it is.

Now what? Whose opinion takes precedence, yours or mine? Shall we fight it out with votes? Who can rouse the most rabble?

Or can we take the sensible way out - which is to let the interested people decide what is printed on their paper, at their cost?

(Note that here we have an excellent vindication of liberals behaving like the fabled cock:

"Sir Roger L`Estrange tells us a story in his collection of Fables, of the Cock and the Horses. The Cock was gotten to roost in the stable among the horses; and there being no racks or other conveniences for him, it seems, he was forced to roost upon the ground. The horses jostling about for room, and putting the Cock in danger of his life, he gives them this grave advice, "Pray, Gentlefolks! let us stand still! for fear we should tread upon one another!" There are some people in the World, who, now they are unperched, and reduced to an equality with other people, and under strong and very just apprehensions of being further treated as they deserve, begin, with Esop`s Cock, to preach up Peace and Union and the Christian duty of Moderation; forgetting that, when they had the Power in their hands, those Graces were strangers in their gates!"

-Shortest Way with the Dissenters

Daniel Defoe

)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A good way to prove your own myopia is to call a communist a liberal.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Richard Cribb]

A good way to prove your own myopia is to call a communist a liberal.

Yes. Normally I would take offense, but with regard to certain individuals one learns to lower ones expectations. Considerably.
He is just showing his usual self, and that is no recommendation.
By the way, I am done with this threads. There are limits for how much time one can consume discussing a most deplorable comic book without feeling too cheap.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bill3000]

Um.

What's Tintin?

 

[Lillefix]

Um.

What's Tintin?

No bells?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or can we take the sensible way out - which is to let the interested people decide what is printed on their paper, at their cost?

So you take the typical liberal approach to censorship instead of the traditional reactionary one of trying to ban anything with which you do not agree? How odd after quoting two noted ultraconservatives above...

 

[Snorrius]

Yes we can. But that is another medium. Don't know about you, but I have a large library which is quite useful to me. Of course, this might have something to do with age, of course.

You should consider adopting digital media. I respect books myself, and adopting of digital media allowed me to create a personal library of several hundred thousand titles.

But very well. Then my proposition would be don't print that blasted comic book, but host it digitally if it means so much to you. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Well, I had not knew about it until today, it is just that this man from Congo annoyed me a little.

On a different note, I am not impressed of your historical analysis of Africa.

Well, I had to say it short, so no details were provided. But it would be interesting to discuss this issue if there will be an opportunity to do this in a proper topic.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But it would be interesting to discuss this issue if there will be an opportunity to do this in a proper topic.

That might make an interesting thread... in the History forum.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, i've been urking a bit so as not to interfere with the debate. Maybe I should do a poll on how many people have actually read the book itself...

@Richard Cribb: I disagree with you. You can't just ban books outright, not with the excuse of material...

@everyone else: I'm glad that no one has proposed any severe restrictions/bans on the book. Keep it off the hands of unwary children, sell it under supervision, and be done with it.

There's some people who still haven't explained their vote, I think. Feel free to do so! All opinions are welcome, though maybe I won't agree with them .

X-post with Valka edit: yes, let's please not derail the thread.

 

[nonconformist]

That might make an interesting thread... in the History forum.

that wasnt me?

 

[Leifmk]

Yeah, i've been urking a bit so as not to interfere with the debate. Maybe I should do a poll on how many people have actually read the book itself...

I'm pretty sure I've read every Tintin book ever published, so yes. (Though not necessarily the original versions of those early ones that were later revised.)

 

[Mise]

Of course it's racist, it was the 1930s. Most things that became popular in Europe in the 1930s were racist.

This is all much ado about nothing. Book shouldn't be banned, but obviously parents might want to give their children something more up-to-date to read.

 

[Leifmk]

Of course it's racist, it was the 1930s. Most things that became popular in Europe in the 1930s were racist.

The book in question does, however, contain uncommonly racist caricatures, even for its period. (It's not entirely evil-minded, but it goes pretty far in the portrayal of black Africans as childish savages in need of white leadership, etc. -- and considering the actual historical treatment of African colonial subjects by the Belgian colonizers in particular, the juxtaposition becomes rather grim.)

This is all much ado about nothing. Book shouldn't be banned, but obviously parents might want to give their children something more up-to-date to read.

I agree completely.

I'll reiterate that later works in the same series tend to show a much less caricatured and more sympathetic portrayal of non-European peoples.

 

[RedRalph]

Of course it's racist, it was the 1930s. Most things that became popular in Europe in the 1930s were racist.

This is all much ado about nothing. Book shouldn't be banned, but obviously parents might want to give their children something more up-to-date to read.

As Leifmk says, it goes a bit beyond your standard portrayal of blacks from that era.

 

[Mise]

The 1930s comment just was a joke about Nazis

 

[Stapel]

It's pretty racist, and it should be sold, but not as a normal children's book, but as a collector's item.

That's the way it has been in NL since decades. The orginal is sold as a collector's item "Kuifje in de Congo". A slightly censored copy is sold as "Kuifje in Afrika".

 

[Masada]

The book in question does, however, contain uncommonly racist caricatures, even for its period. (It's not entirely evil-minded, but it goes pretty far in the portrayal of black Africans as childish savages in need of white leadership, etc. -- and considering the actual historical treatment of African colonial subjects by the Belgian colonizers in particular, the juxtaposition becomes rather grim.)

How is so uncommonly racist? Seems to be fairly vanilla for the time period.

 

[Tee Kay]

Of course it's racist, it was the 1930s. Most things that became popular in Europe in the 1930s were racist.

This is all much ado about nothing. Book shouldn't be banned, but obviously parents might want to give their children something more up-to-date to read.

I agree with this. I've read it. It was a product of its times. Banning it is censorship and whitewashing history.

The book in question does, however, contain uncommonly racist caricatures, even for its period. (It's not entirely evil-minded, but it goes pretty far in the portrayal of black Africans as childish savages in need of white leadership, etc.

That was a pretty common view in the 1930s. Congo was, first and foremost, a political piece/satire, and Herge was influenced by the stereotypes of the time, which he exaggerated for humour. Also, Herge at the time was reflecting the views of his ultra-conservative Catholic patron who I've forgotten the name of.

-- and considering the actual historical treatment of African colonial subjects by the Belgian colonizers in particular, the juxtaposition becomes rather grim.)

Well, Herge was writing in the 1930s, and by then Leopold II has been dead for quite sometime. The Free State, by the way, was not officially a Belgian colony but a personal possession of King Leopold II. It was after his worst excesses were discovered that Belgium decided to formally annexed the Congo, and afterwards the situation got better for the Congolese, if only slightly.

I'll reiterate that later works in the same series tend to show a much less caricatured and more sympathetic portrayal of non-European peoples.

It wasn't because Herge was particularly bigoted towards Africans or anything though. It was a result of Herge's own changing world view, and by extension the change in the political landscape and subsequently the way Europeans view (or forced to view) other cultures.

 

[Takhisis]

I agree with this. I've read it. It was a product of its times. Banning it is censorship and whitewashing history.

Which is what Richard Cribb apparently wanted.
History can't be kept away. It's happened.

That was a pretty common view in the 1930s. Congo was, first and foremost, a political piece/satire, and Herge was influenced by the stereotypes of the time, which he exaggerated for humour. Also, Herge at the time was reflecting the views of his ultra-conservative Catholic patron who I've forgotten the name of.

It wasn't because Herge was particularly bigoted towards Africans or anything though. It was a result of Herge's own changing world view, and by extension the change in the political landscape and subsequently the way Europeans view (or forced to view) other cultures.

I'd really love to get my hands on the original version of Tintin in Congo.

 

[nonconformist]

The book in question does, however, contain uncommonly racist caricatures, even for its period. (It's not entirely evil-minded, but it goes pretty far in the portrayal of black Africans as childish savages in need of white leadership, etc. -- and considering the actual historical treatment of African colonial subjects by the Belgian colonizers in particular, the juxtaposition becomes rather grim.)

I disagree completely. I reckon I'm better qualified to answer the subject than many other people here who are outraged and suchg, merely by the fact that I have read the original 1946 colour issue of it. In fact, I have first editions of every single Tintin book in colour, with the only exceptions being Tintin aux Pays des Soviet and Tintin et L'alpha-art(Hergé's unfinished and unpublished Tintin book), of which I have reproduction copies.

While, by today's standards, it seems crude and villifying of blacks, at the time it was pretty par for course.
In fact, I'm going to go right ahead and make a claim I'm going to be shot down for:
Hergé's depiction of colonisation in Africa is in fact sympathetic to the natives in the context.

The book seems to be more focussed on the "white man's burden" than the savage skirt-wearing mango-throwers", and I actually quite enjoyed the way the Congolese were shown to almost try and imitate their colonists, while having the barest natural resources.
Remember the train that derailed upon hitting Tintin's car, without leaving a scratch?

Or the tribal military?

My European equipped Army will soon show those Babaorums

Sure, the language of the blacks is shown to be a type of semi-comprehensible patois, calling upon what would now be called a racist accent

You no dive, Missah, there be many sharks.
Shocking. Especially when compared to Asterix's sensitive and absolutely respectful depiction of bla

oh.

In fact, the natives are quite often shown to be intelligent, and often brave, albeit naive and open to religious and tribal delusions, especially Coco, Tintin's companion who shows a great deal of resource, bravery and loyalty to his "master".

In fact, it is often the whites who are villified for their manipulation, colonialisation, and their greed.
Tom, the white stoaway is shown to be an utter bastard, and serves to discredit that type of colonialisation.

And what happens at the end? Oh yeah. Tintin busts an entire gang of white american blood diamond smugglers. Hardly what you'd expect if the underlying message was "bash the wog, steal his grass skirt".

The final panel is, in fact, by far one of the most touching I have ever seen in a Tintin book, hinging at the closeness of Africa and Europe, and the respect that should be mutual, while remainign tongue in cheek.

Dey say in Europe, all the whites be like Tintin (café people)
I found Tintin's machine (camera).....(guy in red): If he not back in a year and a day, it belongs to you
Elder telling story: no, I tell you, I will never see another Boula-MAtari (rock smasher, title awarded to Stanley the explorer) like that Tintin
Woman to son: If you no behaved, you never be like Tintin
The Dogs: That Snowy. What a guy.

Defence rests its case. I'm not currently leaning out my window, sipping on G&Ts and taking pot-shots at Sooty Fuzzywuzzy as he picks my cotton.