Brooklyn Library restricts access to Tin Tin book

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ea

Yees.... I'm trying to follow this, but I wondered if you had examples? Either from the thread, or perhaps examples of what ot could be like, turned on its head - a different context tends to show weaknesses in ideas. I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but I don't quite see it. Parhaps I have a blind spot....?

I'll look for examples from elsewhere; I don't want to get into a flamewar arguing over "but that's not what I meant!"

At some point, it stops mattering what someone "meant" because what was understood becomes more important.

There've been several claims or implications in this thread, that "political correctness" has "gone too far," at least in some cases. And that may be true... but it's got very little to do with this set of books, and whether it's reasonable to pull them back from easy public reading.

I'd prefer they were available to anybody, upon request. I don't mind that a person would have to make the request. And I don't think the library is required to keep them at all... libraries have to get rid of some older books, and removing offensive content is just as valid as removing boring/no longer scientifically accurate content.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But this is, of course, Agatha Christie deliberately portraying a character who has anti-Semitic attitudes. Is it "wrong" for an author to have characters in her books who have prejudices?

Harry Turtledove does a great job of prtraying prejudice in amny of his Alt Hist series. One series has people using the word "nigger" with alacrity and you feel that it is right that the word is used, because the people saying it would never use "black" or "African American" or even "Negro." Yo also get a really good feel for where prejudice and hatred originate and why people do horrendous things to one another.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

... I'm a strong free speech, individual rights advocate. Anti-school uniforms....

And I'm appalled at the number of people (not just here) who think that the right to insult and degrade their fellow human beings is so important they must proudly announce their opposition to any attempt to limit access to hateful and thoughtlessly vile materials....

I am not sure I understand you, at all.

Do you believe, that Tin-Tin constitutes "hateful and thoughtlessly vile material?"

Or do you believe, that "free speech" is great, as long as you engage in it, or approve of it, and those who engage in what you view as "hateful and thoughtlessly vile" speech, such as Tin-Tin aficionados, should crawl under a rock, and self-censor?

A little common sense goes a long way. Most people who can read, are reasonable enough, to understand, that books of the past reflect the mores and prejudices of that past, and not of the present (we don't go looking for Amorites to kill, even though God apparently commanded so in the Bible.)

As the village becomes a town, "strangers" become less strange, and our horizons broaden, little by little.

There is a lot, that raises eyebrows in many of the "classics" and I am certain, future generations will find some of our currently accepted "standards," equally small-minded, or even offensive.

"Why are the the three-eyed green persons in late 20th century literature, always portrayed as the bad guys...?"

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't think the library is required to keep them at all... libraries have to get rid of some older books, and removing offensive content is just as valid as removing boring/no longer scientifically accurate content.

I'm not sure I agree there. A lot of people find Ayn Rand offensive. Do we remove her? How about Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.

Also, as has been pointed out in other posts, some people might be interested in these books as research for historical racial views.

I certainly don't want these books in the children's section, but retaining them in the adult section seems reasonable. I also don't like the idea of having to get special permission from library personnel to view a book. I just don't want to explain to someone, "I'm really not a racist, but I need this book for a term paper I'm writing."

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I am not sure I understand you, at all.

Do you believe, that Tin-Tin constitutes "hateful and thoughtlessly vile material?"

I put it in the "thoughtlessly vile" category. Not deliberately hateful, but full of bigotry that was so accepted at the time it was written that it was not only not objectionable, but funny. Except, of course, to the victims, whose opinions weren't considered relevant.

Or do you believe, that "free speech" is great, as long as you engage in it, or approve of it, and those who engage in what you view as "hateful and thoughtlessly vile" speech, such as Tin-Tin aficionados, should crawl under a rock, and self-sensor?

Free speech is great. The right to immense amounts of free speech, which we enjoy in the US, comes with some responsibilities, including learning which communications are hurtful, and reacting to that knowledge.

Overall, I'd like a little less focus on the "right to free speech" (especially since so many people think it means "I have the right to say whatever I want, whenever I want") and more focus on the purpose of that right--"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and so on.

Speech that doesn't do those things is of questionable merit. Not forbidden, not "should be banned"--but decent folks should be willing to look at it and say, "um, so why are you interested in that?"

I support free speech, and the right of people to be annoying, rude, hateful jerks if they wish. I just don't think I'm obligated to praise them for that choice. Nor to support them having easy access to literature that reinforces those choices.

A little common sense goes a long way. Most people who can read, are reasonable enough, to understand, that books of the past reflect the mores and prejudices of that past, and not of the present (we don't go looking for Amorites to kill, even though God apparently commanded so in the Bible.)

Plenty of people kill homosexuals because they believe God commanded so in the Bible. A number of Christians believe all Jews should be killed because of the way they treated Jesus. (We will ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew; they certainly do.)

These are very old cartoons, right? Perhaps in the public domain? In that case, they could be placed online as scans, and anyone could have access to them.

Since there's a movie coming out soon, it's likely people will seek out the originals... and a lot of people are prone to thinking, "if the movie was good, and not racist, then of course any racism in the originals is minor/unimportant/nonexistant, and anyone who says otherwise is looking for trouble." I can understand removing easy access to the source material.

I don't think that "right to free speech" and a desire for information to exist in accessible formats means that all of it should be easy, quick, instantly available on a whim. Some knowledge should be worked for; it doesn't sink in otherwise.

(And I'm probably getting very far out into my own philosophies here, for which I apologize. They don't translate well into this forum's normal communication style.)

[Daithi]

So you are all for free speech but objectionable speech should be harder to access?

[Chuckwade87]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

Yes exactly the point is context not just content.

Anyone who reads has to take what they read with the context of the time it was written. So yes someone who would not have believed themselves a racist may have written a work which unintentionally seems racist to a modern reader.

The modern reader (or parent of reader) needs to take that into account.

Completely agree.


Another aspect we should be looking at is the fact that the library will have a list of people who had to make an appointment to only view the book.

Next thing you know your a suspected terrorist because of the books you read.

I realize it is a big jump, but when you look at the REAL ID Act passed by congress in 2005, (as well as the Patriot act) you can clearly see Orwell´s Big Brother looming on the horizon.

[JGB]

I just connected the dots on what this whole argument was about in Tintin. It never even occured to me that the characters they were using were supposed to be representing a cartoon exaggeration of stereotypical views of a specific race of people.
This reminds me too much of that book analysis crap we had to do in highschool where we discover the deeper (nonsense)
meaning of the authors words and images.


I honestly never connected that they were supposed to be stereotypes of actual people.