Brooklyn Library restricts access to Tin Tin book

[Amalthia]

Originally Posted by ErwinOtten

Oh no, they are cursed............... They are never allowed to read Tin Tin and Asterix by Ahid's standards
And no Sjors and Sjimmie either.........Luckily Ahid has never heard of them, else he would start a crusade right away

Um guys, it's not easy being a minority and having so much literature out there that you can't feel comfortable sharing with your children because of it's racist issues.

They did the black and white doll test again not to long ago and little black girls still want the white doll more than the black doll because it's still reinforced in society that being white is better. Kids pick that up and books like Tin Tin don't help.

I'm not saying the books should be censored but to dismiss the concerns about the book I think is wrong.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

Don't forget Jasmine

And admittedly not a "disney princess" Mowgli was supposed to be an Indian boy.

Don't forget, Alladin with his possible Al'quada background.

[dmikov]

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

Of course we disagree, the topic of this thread is censorship. If you are not supporting it, why are you bringing your pet peeves in it?

It is morally simple issue, don't read, don't give to your children what you think they shouldn't read. It is irrelevant to the majority of the people of the world what you do and don't find offensive. Same goes for my dislikes, I can dislike and find offensive anything from cuddly animals to dominiring females (actually like both ), so what? Lock these books in the library vault?

When I grew up in Soviet Russia anything saying good about West, was found offensive, by keepers of morale and kept in the vault. I cannot stop thinking, that for all your talk about being against censorship you are arguing that offensive books to be locked.

Lastly, I might not give a porcelain caucasian statues of lovers to my diff color girlfriend, but what do you want to do with them? Break them up, so caucasian lover couldn't give them to each other too? What the hell was your point?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by ahi

Increasingly it seems to me that the only thing of consequence Europe is decidedly behind North America is acknowledging and trying to combat racism.

- Ahi

It will take a long time, still. In many cases, the individual countries are fairly homogenous groups with a long, common history and a strong sense of national identity. Any immigration of significance has been within the last 40 years, and in most cases people that are quite different - culture, religion, general education level, looks. It's quite a culture shock on both sides, and both sides still have much to learn. Most immigrants tend to settle in cities, too - if you grow/grew up in the country, and live in the country, chances are that you have had very little reason or opportunity to interact with any others but those like you.

Originally Posted by Amalthia

....
From what I can tell there does appear to be some friction still because my husband still seems to hate the French part of the country a lot and blames them for having his political party outlawed. But is more okay with the German part (maybe shared history?)
...

You can safely assume shared history Or just history. There's many, many examples of "issues" between national/ethnic groups in Europe - and most of it goes far back (example: on a certain level Denmark still haven't gotten over losing to the Prussians (Germans) in 1864). The issues runs the gamut from serious, for example Northern Ireland or Cyprus, to the benign, friendly teasing you'd experience between Scandinavian countries.

[Riocaz]

I think part of the issue is that what is "racism" to one person isn't to another.

I asked one of my friends here (who is Nigerian) his opinion of both the herge depiction and the Asterix one. His reaction was that he found the Tintin one somewhat racist. But the Asterix wasn't because everything in Asterix is a sterotype not just that particular character.

But equally he admitted that he read and loved Asterix as a kid, so he felt there was an element nostalgia for that, but not for TinTin which he hadn't. And in my case thats true too, I read both.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Amalthia

....

I'm coming from cities in the South like San Antonio, Austin, and Houston where the majority population is hispanic and black. Though the majority of people in power are white.

....

Pardone, former Mayor Henry Cisneros was white?

Sorry but I remember the 5th circuit court of appeals turning down an annexation for San Antonio because it would dilute the minority voting rights from 54% to 51%. (1979)

Candidate with broad appeal win, no matter what their race.....

[Patricia]

It's not just Tin-Tin.

People have complained about racism and sexism in Babar the Elephant:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17640

And about the racial stereotyping of the oompah loompahs in Roald Dahl, not to mention the gender stereotypes in Enid Blyton.

My feeling is that if you start to allow censorship then it is difficult to see where to draw the line. A lot of good stories would be banned or censored.

However, perhaps parents could use these books as an opportunity to discuss racism and stereotyping with their children. My daughter loved Enid Blyton. But someone had made marginal comments in our local library books ("Why does Anne always do the washing up?") and this got her thinking.

[Jellby]

I don't have a single black friend. I don't think there was any black child in my school while I was there. But wait, it's not only black people, I don't know any Jew either (well, I think I once met one). Am I a racist because of that? Of course not, it just happens that there are very few black people around here, since they are mostly not natural in my country, and those that live here are mainly in large cities, not in mine. The Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, so there are few nowadays too.

Conversely, many people here say they are not racists because they have nothing against blacks or Jews... Of course they don't, they never met any! But they run gypsies and "Moors" down at the least occasion.

By the way, it's not Tin Tin or Tin-Tin, but Tintin

[sircastor]

I think some of you are missing the point. Keeping a book out of a public library is not a question of Free Speech. Free Speech and Freedom of the press protect an individual's right to express their opinion without government retaliation. It does not guarantee that an individual has the right to be heard, or for his statements to be distributed. It just means that that person won't be denied his freedoms.

Governments (and by extension, public libraries) are in an awkward position of trying to balance their own responsibilities with the desires of the people. Some say that the government has a responsibility to provide for people who can't support themselves. Others say that that's far outside of the Government's responsibility. And we elect officials that have opinions about how this should be handled. Some say anything that is published should be given the chance to be in a library. Others say that what is put in the library should be "publicly acceptable". Still others would say that only things that are popular belong in the public library.

My point is, material being rejected from a public library is *not* a violation of free speech. If the author, publisher, or distributor were denied his liberty or life because due to the work, that would be a violation of free speech.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by sircastor

I think some of you are missing the point. Keeping a book out of a public library is not a question of Free Speech. Free Speech and Freedom of the press protect an individual's right to express their opinion without government retaliation. It does not guarantee that an individual has the right to be heard, or for his statements to be distributed. It just means that that person won't be denied his freedoms.

Governments (and by extension, public libraries) are in an awkward position of trying to balance their own responsibilities with the desires of the people. Some say that the government has a responsibility to provide for people who can't support themselves. Others say that that's far outside of the Government's responsibility. And we elect officials that have opinions about how this should be handled. Some say anything that is published should be given the chance to be in a library. Others say that what is put in the library should be "publicly acceptable". Still others would say that only things that are popular belong in the public library.

My point is, material being rejected from a public library is *not* a violation of free speech. If the author, publisher, or distributor were denied his liberty or life because due to the work, that would be a violation of free speech.

Lest your sensible comment remain unacknowledged, let me say that you are obviously right.

Having said that, I think books in which there are only traces of casual racism/stereotyping that is tangential to the story and which is normative to the time period during which it was written should not be excluded from general libraries that serve large number of people for whom the content is not an issue. After all, such works are despairingly numerous and have genuine merit despite certain parts of their message being "dated". Personally I have no problem with blatant hate-speech being excluded from libraries or even being downright censored/punished by the government--but I think it would be silly to put books like Tintin, Asterix, Robinson Crusoe, Tom Sawyer, et cetera in even broadly the same category.

It does disturb me though--quite a bit, actually--how outraged some people seem to be at the suggestion that racist stereotypes are harmful... even when contained in otherwise enjoyable books, comics, or classic literature... even if the author was well meaning. That, to me, whispers more alarming things about our collective morality than the availability or lack thereof of arguably insensitive/outmoded books at the library.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Ea

It will take a long time, still. In many cases, the individual countries are fairly homogenous groups with a long, common history and a strong sense of national identity. Any immigration of significance has been within the last 40 years, and in most cases people that are quite different - culture, religion, general education level, looks. It's quite a culture shock on both sides, and both sides still have much to learn. Most immigrants tend to settle in cities, too - if you grow/grew up in the country, and live in the country, chances are that you have had very little reason or opportunity to interact with any others but those like you.

You are absolutely right, but it still makes me sad whenever I'm confronted with it.

Not that I'm innocent of it myself... the first time I saw a young Asian woman speak Hungarian (without any accent at all, unlike myself), my reaction was unintentionally boorish (though passively, not actively)... but I really couldn't help it at the time.

- Ahi

[Amalthia]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Pardone, former Mayor Henry Cisneros was white?

Sorry but I remember the 5th circuit court of appeals turning down an annexation for San Antonio because it would dilute the minority voting rights from 54% to 51%. (1979)

Candidate with broad appeal win, no matter what their race.....

the key word being majority. I didn't say all there are always the exceptions to the rule.

If you look at the Senate and house of representatives how many people of color are there? Are there many women? you'd think since women make up half the population of the planet there'd be more women representing women...But there's not.

don't get me wrong I think as a nation we've come a long ways but I still feel like there is room for improvement.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Of course we disagree, the topic of this thread is censorship. If you are not supporting it, why are you bringing your pet peeves in it?

It is morally simple issue, don't read, don't give to your children what you think they shouldn't read. It is irrelevant to the majority of the people of the world what you do and don't find offensive. Same goes for my dislikes, I can dislike and find offensive anything from cuddly animals to dominiring females (actually like both ), so what? Lock these books in the library vault?

When I grew up in Soviet Russia anything saying good about West, was found offensive, by keepers of morale and kept in the vault. I cannot stop thinking, that for all your talk about being against censorship you are arguing that offensive books to be locked.

Lastly, I might not give a porcelain caucasian statues of lovers to my diff color girlfriend, but what do you want to do with them? Break them up, so caucasian lover couldn't give them to each other too? What the hell was your point?

If you insist that I mean things in opposition to what I have said time and again, there is little basis for anything but the most surreal discussion.

- Ahi

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by sircastor

I think some of you are missing the point. Keeping a book out of a public library is not a question of Free Speech. Free Speech and Freedom of the press protect an individual's right to express their opinion without government retaliation. It does not guarantee that an individual has the right to be heard, or for his statements to be distributed. It just means that that person won't be denied his freedoms.

Governments (and by extension, public libraries) are in an awkward position of trying to balance their own responsibilities with the desires of the people. Some say that the government has a responsibility to provide for people who can't support themselves. Others say that that's far outside of the Government's responsibility. And we elect officials that have opinions about how this should be handled. Some say anything that is published should be given the chance to be in a library. Others say that what is put in the library should be "publicly acceptable". Still others would say that only things that are popular belong in the public library.

My point is, material being rejected from a public library is *not* a violation of free speech. If the author, publisher, or distributor were denied his liberty or life because due to the work, that would be a violation of free speech.

The theory behind dealing with library censorship is that the library, being a part of government is not allowed to deny access to speech. That doesn't always get held up in court, but more often than not, it does.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by sircastor

My point is, material being rejected from a public library is *not* a violation of free speech. If the author, publisher, or distributor were denied his liberty or life because due to the work, that would be a violation of free speech.

So, if I allow you to walk free but I'll deny you any way of communicating (by removing your books, journals, webpages, etc) you still are enjoying the freedom of speech?