Brooklyn Library restricts access to Tin Tin book

[HarryT]

For goodness sake, it's a cartoon. Cartoons are based on stereotypes.

[acidzebra]

I tend to see racism where there is actual intent to be racist; this can but does not necessarily include stereotypes and parody. Since pretty much everyone in Asterix is a caricature I don't really see it. Perhaps I am incredibly naïve in my worldview but from what I get from you I prefer that to seeing racism EVERYWHERE.

[Jellby]

I've always found religion (of any variety) much more offensive, and much more likely to traumatize anyone, than comic books... yet I never thought of banning religious books from libraries, bookshops or schools.

[ahi]

People seem to only want to hear (read?) what they want to...

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by ahi

People seem to only want to hear (read?) what they want to...

Does that include yourself or are you magically exempt from this?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Does that include yourself or are you magically exempt from this?

Not magically.

Originally Posted by Riocaz

Is it racist? probably, though it was also probably not meant to be. Is it any worse than any other of the stereotypical depictions? No sorry I can't see that it is.

Not really sure what to say to that...

I'll just point out the first sentence of the wikipedia article:

Blackface, in the narrow sense, is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon ".

This isn't like making your German character mispronounce his W's--and it is quite irrelevant what the intent was. Although to be frank, there exist historical hints that a non-benign stance toward blacks in France may not have been historically uncommon.

- Ahi

[Ea]

I think ahi has a good point - and I don't interpret it as meaning that the book should necessarily be removed from public display, just that the world view it reflect could be/is considered problematic.

As a woman, I have issues with the way women are depicted in Asterix - and in modern culture still. I still read Asterix with delight, though. Likewise I have issues with the stereotypical way gay people are often represented in popular culture. It's getting better, but we still often see the "black face version" of the gay man.

Doesn't mean I want those books/movies/TV shows banned, or books put away - it wouldn't make sense, and I don't think it's right. But it doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. Yes, I think people who want to ban books should get over themselves. They cold spend the energy on changing the world in more postive ways.

[HarryT]

My view has always been that a book is a product of the culture in which it was written, and has to be looked at from that perspective, not as a product of today's culture. Yes, many 19th and early 20th century books do portray non-Europeans and non-Christians in an extremely unfavourable light, but unfortunately those were the prevalent attitudes of the time, and we can't "blame" an author for reflecting the cultural mores of the society in which he or she lived.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My view has always been that a book is a product of the culture in which it was written, and has to be looked at from that perspective, not as a product of today's culture. Yes, many 19th and early 20th century books do portray non-Europeans and non-Christians in an extremely unfavourable light, but unfortunately those were the prevalent attitudes of the time, and we can't "blame" an author for reflecting the cultural mores of the society in which he or she lived.

Just because the author grew up with a certain value system does not make certain parts of their message any less toxic to people of the "right" ethnic/culture/gender/etc. background.

Do we need to pretend that this is a morally simple issue? I don't think it is.

The books should not be banned, or censored... but they do pose genuine issues worth insightful consideration. And the fact that there exists no carte-blanche solution does not mean the issues are not worth discussing.

Do we not agree on this?

- Ahi

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Sigh. Is it Banned Books Week yet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/...restricts_book

I had a friend once who used to pass out buttons that read, "No Censorship. No Exceptions."

I'm for that.

Seems like a massive over reaction to me. However, I must admit that I was one of those children who didn't think cartoon characters (in any media) were real people, or that they were even an accurate representation of real people.

I remembear watching Looney Tunes cartoons that had depictions of White, Black and Native American hunters (the first being Elmer Fudd, of course), and I never thought that they were anything but over the top funny. I also didn't think that rabbits and ducks could talk, or that if an anvil dropped on your head it would spring back like an accordian.

When it was time for me to read period literature, I took the racism to be a product of the time at which the piece was authored. I didn't internalize it because my mother raised me to think for myself. Sadly, it has been my experience that a lot of people prefer to have someone else do the thinking for them. I wonder why those people even bother to learn to read since it would seem that their whole world view would have to alter every time they picked up a copy of Lil' Lulu. (Oh yes, Sluggo ... proof positive that all White males are evil bullies.)

I spoke with a young lady at my vet's office day before yesterday. Sweet girl, just adorable. However, somehow it ended up coming out that she thought that France had no cross cultural or race issues. She was completely unaware of French Morocco, the French Foreign Legion, the fact that France has a HUGE Muslim population that is at cross purposes with the secular French government. She was also unaware that most of Africa was part of some European country's colonial empire up until WWII. And, the simple truth is, colonial governments always give rise to derogatory stereotypes and the writings will either reflect those or perpetuate them. Little Black Sambo, written by a woman who lived in colonial India, Sam Clemmons (who's work was really an indictment of racism) who grew up in the slave holding South. Margaret Mitchell, born in Atlanta, Georgia during some of the worst of the Jim Crow years. Interestingly, most people's perception of Blacks from "Gone with the Wind" come from the movie rather than the book. The two really don't have all that much in common other than names of characters.

So, for myself, I think the actions of the NY library system are deplorable. I also happen to think that any time children are exposed to materials that might be "sensitive" (the Bible, for example, full of racism, cruelty, slavery, murder), they should be taught the underlying history of the work so that they can understand it in context. This is, of course, assuming that they are not old enough or do not have the capacity to understand that rabbits don't talk (or live in houses and wear clothing - with all due respect to Beatrix Potter), that the people of the Congo are not monkeys, and that tigers don't turn into butter.

Of course, restricting access to, and not teaching about the history and context of, any artwork or literature leaves people as (well, as my favorite movie character would say) "Aryans from Darrien with braces on their brains").

[calvin-c]

IMO not carrying a book in a library (or deciding to remove one from public availability) is not censorship-it's management. Not allowing a book to be published or sold-now that's censorship. Nobody, that I know of, says that free speech means that the public must have free access to books.

All libraries get rid of books that they believe are no longer popular. I think it's obvious that if a book is as offensive as they seem to believe this one is that it will not be popular among the general public. So I guess it's a question of what the NYPL policy is.

In my experience, when libraries decide books are no longer popular they get rid of them-NYPL obviously didn't. Maybe that's a recognition that popularity is a fad. Or it might be based on their perception of why a book isn't popular. Whatever the reason, no library that I know of is required to carry every book in existence. Some of them may, however, be required (by their own policies) to make every book they carry available to the general public. Obviously the NYPL isn't so required-which I think is a damned shame, but I do not see it as censorship, just management.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ahi

Just because the author grew up with a certain value system does not make certain parts of their message any less toxic to people of the "right" ethnic/culture/gender/etc. background.

Do we need to pretend that this is a morally simple issue? I don't think it is.

The books should not be banned, or censored... but they do pose genuine issues worth insightful consideration. And the fact that there exists no carte-blanche solution does not mean the issues are not worth discussing.

Do we not agree on this?

- Ahi

Certainly, I will agree with you about that.

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by ahi

Not magically.

But you consider yourself exempt... Thanks for clarifing your position.

Originally Posted by ahi

I'll just point out the first sentence of the wikipedia article:

And I will point out again that the artist who was born in 1927 and first drew the character in 1962. And that as a Frenchman would he have neccessarily have been influenced by an American cultural caricature as anything more than as a model to base his character on. No more than the Golliwogg of Florence Kate Upton's storys were . Or Svart Pete of dutch folklore.

edit: I'm wrong to refer to Golliwogg in this context, as Florence was American though the Golliwogg stories were written in Britain, she clearly would have been aware of the american interpretation, But I can stand by the rest of the paragraph

But then North Americans often assume their culture must be dominant over the entire planet. Look at the "controversy" over the pokemon "jynx" which was assumed to represent "Blackface" but was actually parodying the darkly tanned with blond hair and heavy make-up of the Ganguro fashion trend popular at the time in Japan.

[evenstr]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

IMO not carrying a book in a library (or deciding to remove one from public availability) is not censorship-it's management. Not allowing a book to be published or sold-now that's censorship. Nobody, that I know of, says that free speech means that the public must have free access to books.

All libraries get rid of books that they believe are no longer popular. I think it's obvious that if a book is as offensive as they seem to believe this one is that it will not be popular among the general public. So I guess it's a question of what the NYPL policy is.

In my experience, when libraries decide books are no longer popular they get rid of them-NYPL obviously didn't. Maybe that's a recognition that popularity is a fad. Or it might be based on their perception of why a book isn't popular. Whatever the reason, no library that I know of is required to carry every book in existence. Some of them may, however, be required (by their own policies) to make every book they carry available to the general public. Obviously the NYPL isn't so required-which I think is a damned shame, but I do not see it as censorship, just management.

There's a difference between getting rid of a book because it isn't popular and keeping it locked up because of complaints. If libraries kept every book they ever bought/got through donations, there wouldn't be room to walk. My local library system is almost a hundred years old. I recently volunteered at a library book sale where they were selling the books that weren't being checked out and some of the donations that can't fit on the shelves. In less than a year we gathered enough books that they filled all the tables and two library carts and we had to put books on chairs. Selling old books/making room is library management. Locking up objectionable books is censorship.

[Riocaz]

or even in this case a single complaint as was implied in this article.

The library system took the rare step after a patron complained "Tintin au Congo" (Tehn-Tehn aw) portrayed Africans as monkeys.

(Emphasis mine)