Brooklyn Library restricts access to Tin Tin book

[alecE]

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. ... 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.

For brevity I have removed part of the original quote; this is indicated by the ellipsis.

I worked in a UK public library service in the 1970's and 1980's as a professional librarian. During that time I witnessed the deliberate removal of ALL copies of Tin Tin and Asterix on the grounds that they perpetuated racist stereotypes. That these books were popular was manifested by the date stamps on the books showing they were borrowed frequently and by the worn-out condition of the books. The objections of the reading public (black, brown, yellow and white) were overridden. When the removed books were put on sale, they were so quickly snapped up that we were told to remove them from sale to avoid embarrassment to the management.

One instance does not constitute proof that all libraries use "political" criteria to manage their stocks, it does though provide evidence that they *may*.

[alecE]

My siblings and I were brought up on a diet of Little Black Sambo, Tin Tin, Asterix, Babar the Elephant, Mark Twain, Janet & John, Topsy & Tim amongst many other items of children's reading. Strange to say, these did not turn us into avowedly sexist or racist people. My son thoroughly enjoyed Tin Tin, Asterix, Babar, Topsy & Tim (by then rather self-consciously multi-cultural). He too was able to identify the content of the books as being stereotypical but not necessarrilly desirable.

So, some books at different times will be considered to be more or less offensive to some groups. I don't think that constitutes a valid argument for banning or restricting them - if we do restrict access, where shall we stop? I am currently reading a modern history of Australia and have consequently read numerous quotations of quite appalling racism directed both towards Aborigines and most other non-white peoples. Shall we now trawl through the reserve stocks of every library to eliminate such terrible writings? How about all the examples of grotesque stereotyping and overt hostility directed towards people with red hair? (If you think it doesn't exist, you've never been on the receiving end of it!). Shall we ban all writings that claim the superiority of Sharia law over UK secular law?

Yes, sometimes people write stuff that is disgustingly offensive, to me. Their freedom to do so is the price I willingly pay for my own freedoms. Anybody restricting access to certain writings "because they might offend me" is doing me a great disservice.

[Chuckwade87]

I don't think it was wrong of the Library to take out the books and throw them behind lock and key, Especially if someone found it offensive.
Just like the Library doesnt carry Playboy,why,so that everyone can feel welcome in the library environment.

Of course throwing the TinTin books behind lock and key are going to lower its exposure to the public but is it going to STOP Racism??? No its not.

I consider myself part of the most racially-integrated groups out there. The US Army.
Yet even though the army has been integrated for sometime now, there are still times when I feel like I am looked at with "Dagger eyes" by my superiors. And I am white mind you. Yet, it all changes once you go downrange with them. But still....

Most humans have some Racist tendencies. I don't care what you say in reply to this, Because it is a scientific fact that humans will Segregate themselves.

So the library did it to make some individuals feel better. They didn't go have a Rally and Start Burning Books.
I have digital copies of the books anyways. Me, my wife and kids enjoy Asterix & Oberlix, The movies are nice too if you haven't seen them. I don't have a rote armband und harckenkreuz, on my arm yet(nor do I plan on one) either. And neither will my kids.

I look as these books as a sort of timeline, you can see what is acceptable in 1930's Europe, and you look now (in Europe) and it is completely different. I have been living in Germany for 3 years now, but that doesnt make me an expert either. And @ Ahi, where is your evidence for Europe being behind America?

@ ALL : Do you think the Authors of these books expected so much controverse over them, some 70yrs later?

[Daithi]

The though that people would show children a cartoon that depicts Africans as some sort of sub-humans or monkeys is simply vile. I have absolutely zero interest in reading this cartoon and strongly wish that other adults would not show this book to their children. I don't care for hate speech at all! Cartoons that depict the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head, a crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin Mary smeared in dung, and all with the express purpose of inflicting emotional harm on the viewer. People who do this kind of thing are flatout disgusting.

However, I'm even more strongly opposed to censorship. I'd much rather live with speech I find reprehensible than to see any speech censored.

I'd be fine with the library moving the book from the kids section of the library to the adult section, like Borders did, but banning the book is simply wrong.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Daithi

... and all with the express purpose of inflicting emotional harm on the viewer. ....

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Chuckwade87

Of course throwing the TinTin books behind lock and key are going to lower its exposure to the public but is it going to STOP Racism??? No its not.

It's not attempting to stop racism. It's attempting to avoid condoning it, by saying, "the values expressed in these books are controversial, and many people believe they are harmful. We'd rather you didn't run across them by accident, or use them as examples of modern societal norms."

Most humans have some Racist tendencies. I don't care what you say in reply to this, Because it is a scientific fact that humans will Segregate themselves.

"Scientific?" You have studies to prove that people will segregate by race, if they all have equal legal and social rights?

Humans tend to group themselves by similarity... but it takes training to teach them that skin color is more important than hair color or eye color, more important than height or age, more important than social standing or job, in making those groups. People don't instinctively sort themselves out by race.

@ ALL : Do you think the Authors of these books expected so much controverse over them, some 70yrs later?

Of course not--because casual racism was the norm 70 years ago. It was perfectly acceptable to caricaturize and mock any cultures that weren't white & European-based.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It was perfectly acceptable to caricaturize and mock any cultures that weren't white & European-based.

It is still perfectly acceptable to caricaturize and mock (for the sake of joking and not to be offensive) any culture, country, people, etc. that's not your own. It's so funny to see all the "white & European" red-sunburnt tourists at the beaches here And the French can't pronounce the R's, the English are always drunk, the Germans are square-headed... If we can laugh at other Europeans, I don't see why we can't laugh at Africans, Asians, Americans, etc.

[sircastor]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

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?

Yes. I was guaranteed the right to write, or speak, not the right to be heard, published, or distributed. Governmental supported and run institutions are not the only (nor the primary) source of information distribution in the country. The US government doesn't have the right to remove books, journals, or webpages except from it's own facilities/websites, which are limited.

The US government can't prevent DoubleDay from printing my book, nor can it stop me from sharing my opinion on the street. The Freedom of speech also doesn't mean that DoubleDay will want to print my book or anyone on the street will want to hear what I have to say. The government which "denies you any way of communicating." is forbidden by the constitution.

The sole exception to this rule is when what you are communicating violates another law. If you're sharing state secrets or publishing child-pornography, the government has the responsibility to stop you, but it's not because they're denying you your right of free-speech, it because you're violating the law. If you don't agree with that law, you appeal to the Judicial system.

Edit: I should also note that I'm not talking about censorship. Censorship is denying expression to a particular audience. Free speech doesn't apply to censorship because Free speech does not imply an audience, whereas, censorship does.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Jellby

It is still perfectly acceptable to caricaturize and mock (for the sake of joking and not to be offensive) any culture, country, people, etc. that's not your own. It's so funny to see all the "white & European" red-sunburnt tourists at the beaches here And the French can't pronounce the R's, the English are always drunk, the Germans are square-headed... If we can laugh at other Europeans, I don't see why we can't laugh at Africans, Asians, Americans, etc.

There's a difference between "laugh at" and "imply that they're funny because they're not really human," which was the tone of much of the pre-civil-rights-era caricatures.

All mocking is intended to be offensive; that's how the humor of "mocking" works. In "friendly" mocking, the humor is supposed to carry the additional message, "we all know this is an exaggeration or an outright lie," but there's still an offensive statement at the core. The issue is whether the offensive statement is hurtful as well as shocking and rude.

Among other issues, there's a substantial difference between mocking the people in power, and the people living under oppression.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Daithi

The though that people would show children a cartoon that depicts Africans as some sort of sub-humans or monkeys is simply vile. I have absolutely zero interest in reading this cartoon and strongly wish that other adults would not show this book to their children.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

We need these books as resources and reminders. Which doesn't mean we need them handed around as casual, light reading. Restricting them to must-ask-first stacks sounds about right to me.

[khalleron]

Jellby,

The rules are:

1. You may make fun of yourself
2. You may make fun of anyone who is more powerful than you
3. You may make fun of your equals, but be careful if you're making fun of differences.
4. You may NOT make fun of anyone less powerful than you. Not only is it offensive, it is not sporting.

Does that explain why you can make fun of fellow Europeans (rule 3) but not Africans or Asians (Rule 4)?

You may make fun of Americans under Rule 2.

Kate

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

There's a difference between "laugh at" and "imply that they're funny because they're not really human," which was the tone of much of the pre-civil-rights-era caricatures.

All mocking is intended to be offensive; that's how the humor of "mocking" works. In "friendly" mocking, the humor is supposed to carry the additional message, "we all know this is an exaggeration or an outright lie," but there's still an offensive statement at the core. The issue is whether the offensive statement is hurtful as well as shocking and rude.

Among other issues, there's a substantial difference between mocking the people in power, and the people living under oppression.

This is a difference that a lot of people in this thread seem to be refusing to acknowledge. If they did... there would be little to argue about. After all, the issue is simple enough:

- Banning books that contain parts that are incidentally offensive by modern standards is wrong.

- Ignorant racists views expressed about certain ethnic groups are likewise wrong, and definitely have the potential to inflict psychological harm regardless of what the author's original intentions may have been.

I suspect what makes a lot of people fail to understand these rather simple points is due to the fact that the western world has no cherished classics (whether western or non-western in origin) that depict white people as subhuman, but is teeming with books that do the same to others.

Perhaps if high-school curriculums were full of books relating Native Americans' and Asians' early impressions about caucasians being a dirty and foul-smelling people (popular perceptions on those two fronts for a while, I believe), understanding what is wrong with books that depict blacks and others as subhuman animals or supporting clowns would not be so hard.

- Ahi

[Moejoe]

oops

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Does that explain why you can make fun of fellow Europeans (rule 3) but not Africans or Asians (Rule 4)?

So, by not making fun of them I'm actually implying they are less powerful than I? Isn't that offensive?

Seriously, I more or less know how it works, and there is a thin line between what is funny and what is offensive, a line that varies with people and contexts. I just wanted to point out that sometimes people (myself included) are too prone to be offended.

I also think that the current search for "political correctness" is counterproductive. Everyone (especially the media) tries to be nice to all the groups that could be regarded as "sensitive": racial minorities, women, the handicapped... My view is that it's good to be nice, but it's dangerous to be artificilly "too nice", by trying to imply that you don't care about the differences you actually make the differences the more obvious. To come back to the initial topic, I read the Tintin comic as a fiction history unrelated to the real world, where everyone is displayed through stereotypes, and those funny dark characters make funny things. If I then wonder and worry about how black people may feel with that, I'm somehow relating those "funny characters" with real black people, something which actually I don't, just like I don't relate Dupond and Dupont with real policemen, or Mr. Bean with your typical Englishman.

I don't know if I make myself clear...

You may make fun of Americans under Rule 2.

I was thinking of South-Americans (most of which are more powerful than I am, anyway)

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Jellby,

The rules are:

1. You may make fun of yourself
2. You may make fun of anyone who is more powerful than you
3. You may make fun of your equals, but be careful if you're making fun of differences.
4. You may NOT make fun of anyone less powerful than you. Not only is it offensive, it is not sporting.

Does that explain why you can make fun of fellow Europeans (rule 3) but not Africans or Asians (Rule 4)?

You may make fun of Americans under Rule 2.

Kate

Interesting.
My own view is that you can make fun of people for things they are responsible for, and could change (e.g. some bankers' greedy behaviour).
But it is cruel to make fun of people for something that they can do nothing about, such as their skin colour, or disability, or ethnic origin.