NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070712/tuk-tintin-book-embroiled-in-race-row-45dbed5.html

Tintin is far from racist as I've ever known. Perhaps someone can enlighten these people a little.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070712/tuk-tintin-book-embroiled-in-race-row-45dbed5.html

Tintin is far from racist as I've ever known. Perhaps someone can enlighten these people a little.

That particular book (Tintin in the Congo) has been controversial for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_in_the_Congo#Colonialism_and_racism

I've never read the book, though, so I have no idea if it's "racist," or not, but judging by the time it was written, it undoubtedly was to a certain extent.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070712/tuk-tintin-book-embroiled-in-race-row-45dbed5.html

Tintin is far from racist as I've ever known. Perhaps someone can enlighten these people a little.
Until I've read the book, I'll reserve judgement, or use my Thompson & Thomson sleuthing skills to find out more...

Tintin is far from racist as I've ever known.

Then you must know very little about the matter, as Tintin in the Congo is quite racist indeed.

Perhaps someone can enlighten these people a little.

Perhaps this can enlighten you:

http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~pdehaye/about_belgium/congo.jpg

http://www.dafyd.me.uk/blog/docs/tintin.jpg

Portraying black people like lazy, thick-lipped monkeys and idiots who can't add two and two - yeah, how could anyone find that racist? :rolleyes:

Then you must know very little about the matter, as Tintin in the Congo is quite racist indeed.



Perhaps this can enlighten you:

http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~pdehaye/about_belgium/congo.jpg

http://www.dafyd.me.uk/blog/docs/tintin.jpg

Portraying black people like thick-lipped monkeys and idiots who can't add two and two - yeah, how could anyone find that racist? :rolleyes:

Deplorable, but sadly typical of that era. A lot like American comics at the time.

Portraying black people like lazy, thick-lipped monkeys and idiots who can't add two and two - yeah, how could anyone find that racist? :rolleyes:

No, its portraying THOSE PEOPLE like that. It wasn't intended to make a statement about all black people. Interpret every negative thing said about a particular group as a generalisation and you will see lots of racisim. You will also be rather foolish

It wasn't intended to make a statement about all black people.

I'm sure it was. That's how black people were commonly portrayed back then.

Interpret every negative thing said about a particular group as a generalisation and you will see lots of racisim. You will also be rather foolish

In this case, it is racism, so seeing it is just seeing the truth. How does that make one "rather foolish?"

Oh, there's no doubt it caters to the 'White Man's Burden' like no tomorrow.

Of course, I don't consider this a reason to bitch about it (And it just occurs to me... It's hilariously ironic, considering what the Belgians actually did (http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocong.htm) in the Congo). But still - the racism cannot be doubted. That moving it to the adult section is stupid is an entirely different matter.

No, its portraying THOSE PEOPLE like that. It wasn't intended to make a statement about all black people. Interpret every negative thing said about a particular group as a generalisation and you will see lots of racisim. You will also be rather foolish

get your head out of the sand, of course it was making a generalised statement, especially if you consider the audience it was written for.

No, its portraying THOSE PEOPLE like that. It wasn't intended to make a statement about all black people. Interpret every negative thing said about a particular group as a generalisation and you will see lots of racisim. You will also be rather foolish

I have to agree, if we are going to lambast stuff like this and make a big deal then we have to treat other things in the same way.

No more rappers singing about Bitches. Well have to watch how we portray all people on TV, SouthPark will need to just stop, and all vidoe's DVD's of it destroyed.

Makes me think of how we were openly admonished to doublethink the word "******" out of Huck Finn when we read it in high school. I can barely comprehend how stupid that incident was, I mean, Huck Finn was a satire of the south at the time, and was ridiculing the racism, not condoning it.

I have to agree, if we are going to lambast stuff like this and make a big deal then we have to treat other things in the same way.

No more rappers singing about Bitches. Well have to watch how we portray all people on TV, SouthPark will need to just stop, and all vidoe's DVD's of it destroyed.

the difference between southpark and this is that south park uses racism and the like ironically for social commentary and comedic effect, whereas this does not appear to at all. and correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a rap song that sang about bitches carry a parental guidance warning on the CD case? i think that is equivalent to what is being done with this comic.

Personally, I am fan of Tintin, I have been since my youth.

While there is agreeable a form of cariacature and indirect racism, as far as I am aware, there is no explicit racism in the the word-strip, except for where racism itself is being mocked,

i.e. "Tintin and the Blue Lotus" mocks Westerners for their racist attitudes towards Chinese, and the unfairness of the so-called "Unequal Treaties".

Herge was an arguably a Flemish fascist sympathist, however he was an ardent anti-Nazi, and some of his strips were censored for indirect criticism of Nazi rule during the period.
Unfortunately, such views were typical of European thinking at the time, and this only reflects the period, rather than a radical statement. It would be unfortunate if people didn't buy Tintin because of this, as his character is portrayed as a force for progressive liberalism and democracy in the most part.

No, its portraying THOSE PEOPLE like that. It wasn't intended to make a statement about all black people. Interpret every negative thing said about a particular group as a generalisation and you will see lots of racisim. You will also be rather foolish'Those People' being 'Every single black man ever to show up in TinTin'?

It edges rather closely, don't you think?

Seriously - TinTin's full of stereotypes (It has to be - the comics are meant to be humourous, and stereotypes facilitate humour), be it the drunk captain, the confused professor, the retarded police, the militant military - generally stereottyping the Germans, considering the time some of the comics were made -, and denying it is kinda silly. Whether these stereotypes were actually meant to be malicious is another matter - I'd say 'No, they weren't', but they're there, with TinTin in the Congo being very height - and considering the actual Belgian behaviour in the Congo, I'd, frankly, dare and say that a case can be made for TinTin in the Congo being revisionist propaganda, perfectly up to par with mild forms of holocaust denial.

I still like the book, but it'd be silly to claim that the above isn't present.

[url]
Tintin is far from racist as I've ever known. Perhaps someone can enlighten these people a little.


I don't think its them that needs enlightening.....

It shouldn't be banned. If we banned all racist, bigoted literature we'd have to get rid of a hell of a lot of classical literature.

Just because one doesn't agree with the message or point of view doesn't mean we can tell people not to read it.

It shouldn't be banned. If we banned all racist, bigoted literature we'd have to get rid of a hell of a lot of classical literature.

Just because one doesn't agree with the message or point of view doesn't mean we can tell people not to read it.

A High Street bookshop chain is moving an edition of children's favourite Tintin to its adult section following a complaint of racism.

So, which orifice did you pull the idea that it was being banned from?

Makes me think of how we were openly admonished to doublethink the word "******" out of Huck Finn when we read it in high school. I can barely comprehend how stupid that incident was, I mean, Huck Finn was a satire of the south at the time, and was ridiculing the racism, not condoning it.

That's the result of having a shitty teacher, and has little to do, I suspect, with political correctness.

So, which orifice did you pull the idea that it was being banned from?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6294670.stm

That one.

I didn't actually read his article, because I'd just read the BBC's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6294670.stm

That one.

I didn't actually read his article, because I'd just read the BBC's.

Ah. Fair enough. :)

No, its portraying THOSE PEOPLE like that. It wasn't intended to make a statement about all black people.

That part of the post has an extra-pungent bouquet of bullshit.

You will also be rather foolish

Irony much?

the difference between southpark and this is that south park uses racism and the like ironically for social commentary and comedic effect, whereas this does not appear to at all. and correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a rap song that sang about bitches carry a parental guidance warning on the CD case? i think that is equivalent to what is being done with this comic.

So you say that racism is okay as long as it is done for comedic effect?

I would say that TinTin comes under this catagory wouldn't you?

So you say that racism is okay as long as it is done for comedic effect?

I would say that TinTin comes under this catagory wouldn't you?

Comedic effect and social commentary. There's a huge difference when you use them both together.

So you say that racism is okay as long as it is done for comedic effect?

I would say that TinTin comes under this catagory wouldn't you?Note him mentioning 'Irony'. South Park attacks racism. TinTin in the Congo facilitates it.

Nowadays, it amounts to little more than a historic anecdote, similar to, lets say, popular books from around 1900 about assorted nations' colonies - which I don't think hang around in adult sections, either -, but the difference between the 'White Man's Burden' background of TinTin and South Park's 'Fuck the Establishment' sarcasm is kinda... Obvious.

Note him mentioning 'Irony'. South Park attacks racism. TinTin in the Congo facilitates it.

Nowadays, it amounts to little more than a historic anecdote, similar to, lets say, popular books from around 1900 about assorted nations' colonies - which I don't think hang around in adult sections, either -, but the difference between the 'White Man's Burden' background of TinTin and South Park's 'Fuck the Establishment' sarcasm is kinda... Obvious.

Yeah. It seems to me that TinTin in the Congo is far more reminiscent of the Disney and Bugs Bunny cartoons (among others) from the 40s and 50s, or even more appropriately, Song of the South.

So you say that racism is okay as long as it is done for comedic effect?

I would say that TinTin comes under this catagory wouldn't you?

when the comedic effect is satirical then yes. i wouldn't say tin tin comes under that category, no.

the point is the audience it is pitched at, tin tin is a kids comic book, kids aren't known for their grasp of satire as far as i am aware. south park is pitched at considerably older viewers, it's shown post-watershed, who could probably be expected to have some grasp of irony and social issues.

Comedic effect and social commentary. There's a huge difference when you use them both together.

*sigh* Okay, well I would still say that TinTin comes under that wouldn't you?

Yeah. It seems to me that TinTin in the Congo is far more reminiscent of the Disney and Bugs Bunny cartoons (among others) from the 40s and 50s, or even more appropriately, Song of the South.Hum. Didn't think of those, but yes, they're actually a much better comparison (Though, unlike TinTin in the Congo, quite obviously meant to be malicious, rather than belittling).

Of course, these cartoons are hardly ever shown, exactly because of their content (A pity though that is - I consider them to be positively awesome. Admittedly, animation from the thirties, forties and fifties generally beats the shit out of more or less everything that came after it, regardless of content, but I digress). Meh.

*sigh* Okay, well I would still say that TinTin comes under that wouldn't you?

Not really.

I'm sure it was. That's how black people were commonly portrayed back then.

I'd like a little more in the way of evidence than you're certianty, seeing as how my point of view is self evident, it makes no comments such as "Are all africans this stupid" etc


In this case, it is racism, so seeing it is just seeing the truth. How does that make one "rather foolish?"

Racisim is not something as simple as negative representation.

Not really.

Okay fair enough.

Do you think that this particular book is racist?

I'd like a little more in the way of evidence than you're certianty, seeing as how my point of view is self evident, it makes no comments such as "Are all africans this stupid" etc


Why the fuck would it need to, in an era where it was taken as read?

Why the fuck would it need to, in an era where it was taken as read?

It was an era that was racist but that doesnt mean to say that this specific piece was. Its a negative portrayal but negative potrayl =/= racisim

It was an era that was racist but that doesnt mean to say that this specific piece was. Its a negative portrayal but negative potrayl =/= racisim

it's portraying people with a particular skin tone in a generalised negative manner. what more evidence do you need?

It was an era that was racist but that doesnt mean to say that this specific piece was. Its a negative portrayal but negative potrayl =/= racisim

Are you taking the piss? Do you know what used go on in the "Belgian" Congo?

it's portraying people with a particular skin tone in a generalised negative manner. what more evidence do you need?

Bwaah it is no differant form other things of the same type from the same era.

*sigh* Okay, well I would still say that TinTin comes under that wouldn't you?
*gives you a slap for being a complete retard about the whole affair*

*gives you a slap for being a complete retard about the whole affair*

Ohhh kinky! So you would not agree that the Tin Tin books are meant to be funny?

Bwaah it is no differant form other things of the same type from the same era.

just cuz you're peers are doing it doesn't mean it's acceptable. i see no reason to ban this material, but responsibility for kids reading this stuff and considering it a reasonable portrayal should be down to parents or guardians, hence the move to do the equivalent of putting a parental guidance sticker on the cover.

just cuz you're peers are doing it doesn't mean it's acceptable. i see no reason to ban this material, but responsibility for kids reading this stuff and considering it a reasonable portrayal should be down to parents or guardians, hence the move to do the equivalent of putting a parental guidance sticker on the cover.

Okay soo explain exacty what is racist about this book. Because I fail to see it.

Okay soo explain exacty what is racist about this book. Because I fail to see it.

Are you using some form of "internet for the blind"? Even Herge thought it was dodgy, looking back at it.

Okay soo explain exacty what is racist about this book. Because I fail to see it.

well i'm not going to be able to explain it in any words other thanhave already been used here so i'll just have to assume you don't understand what racism is and the many ways in which it can be expressed. go look it up in a dictionary, or better still, an encyclopaedia.

well i'm not going to be able to explain it in any words other thanhave already been used here so i'll just have to assume you don't understand what racism is and the many ways in which it can be expressed. go look it up in a dictionary, or better still, an encyclopaedia.

The you assume wrong, in fact your unwillingness to explain exactly how this book fosters the belief that one race is superior than another, or show discrimination based upon race, or fosters hatred or intolerance for a race, tells me that you have not found evidance of racsim in this book?

Unless it is merely the charecotures of black people in this book that has you goat? Which as I have already said is equal to any publication of the same type and the same age.

I have found nothing here that constitutes racism as defined above, so i ask again, what exatly do you find racist in this book?

Oooh-kay, what about Tintin and the Blue Lotus? Beaver-toothed Japanese?

People can re-interpret the classics in any way the want, be it racists or not,... remember Tom Sawyer?

I don't think Herge meant any harm by portraying how the Africans were depicted at that time, I don't even think he has ever been to Congo to research it.

The you assume wrong, in fact your unwillingness to explain exactly how this book fosters the belief that one race is superior than another, or show discrimination based upon race, or fosters hatred or intolerance for a race, tells me that you have not found evidance of racsim in this book?

Unless it is merely the charecotures of black people in this book that has you goat? Which as I have already said is equal to any publication of the same type and the same age.

I have found nothing here that constitutes racism as defined above, so i ask again, what exatly do you find racist in this book?

well fass spelled it out pretty clearlyon page one. with pictures and all.

Portraying black people like lazy, thick-lipped monkeys and idiots who can't add two and two - yeah, how could anyone find that racist? :rolleyes:

a white kid and a dog finding it necessary to teach adult black people basic numeracy fits the first bit of your above definition, as would portraying them with overtly simian-like qualities. and the portrayal of black people as lazy would indeed foster intolerance. i don't know how much clearer you want it, but as i said before, i'm not going to be able to explain it any better than has already been said.

Are you using some form of "internet for the blind"? Even Herge thought it was dodgy, looking back at it.

Seeing as how this was one of the first books, you can understand why it was not considered racist when it was written but later audiences found it to be so.

Tintin evolves as a comic book throughout its history. Other books written later show Tintin freeing slaves who are not drawn in such a caricature like fashion. Thus, someone who read those later comics first, such as myself, would be quite surprised by the amount of implicit racism in the book. Tintin in America also suffers from this societal racism.

Mind you, Shakespeare's Merchant in Venice is anti-semitic....

I would let my kids read it, but use it as an example of how views on race have changed over the years.

Are you taking the piss? Do you know what used go on in the "Belgian" Congo?
Do you? You better refresh your knowledge on "Belgian" Congo. The story was written after Leopold II's bloody reign over his "private property".

You know, there's definitely someones being stupid again in this thread, but it's not the "PC people." That's all I'm gonna add, everything that needed to be said has already.

well fass spelled it out pretty clearlyon page one. with pictures and all.



a white kid and a dog finding it necessary to teach adult black people basic numeracy fits the first bit of your above definition, as would portraying them with overtly simian-like qualities. and the portrayal of black people as lazy would indeed foster intolerance. i don't know how much clearer you want it, but as i said before, i'm not going to be able to explain it any better than has already been said.

And that does not answer my question. Lets get it personal. What is it about this book that you found to:

Fosters hatred of black people, or foster the belife that white people are supeior to black people, or shows discrimination based on race?

The pictures them selfs harldy count as it is charecature that all similar comic books of that period share. This is not in and of itself racist, it does not full under any of the definition above.

The page of Tin Tin in a school teaching, why is that racist? I mean exactly what is it about this that is racist?

What about the Aterix books? Is it racist because all of the Gauls(French) are depicted with big noses? Or all of the English with cups of tea, and stopping a battle at 3:00 for a cup of tea.

Yes sure these are stereo types, but again not in and of itself racist.

And that does not answer my question. Lets get it personal. What is it about this book that you found to:

Fosters hatred of black people, or foster the belife that white people are supeior to black people, or shows discrimination based on race?

The pictures them selfs harldy count as it is charecature that all similar comic books of that period share. This is not in and of itself racist, it does not full under any of the definition above.
we're judging this book by modern standards, not by the standards of its contemporaries, stop bringing them into it.
The page of Tin Tin in a school teaching, why is that racist? I mean exactly what is it about this that is racist?
it's depicting blacks as a group as being inherently less intelligent than whites. and further, it's depicting black adults as inherently less intelligent than white children, and even (considering Snowy was always portrayed as having intelligence and generally thinking the same way as his master) than dogs. that is racist.

What about the Aterix books? Is it racist because all of the Gauls(French) are depicted with big noses? Or all of the English with cups of tea, and stopping a battle at 3:00 for a cup of tea.

Yes sure these are stereo types, but again not in and of itself racist.
there's a difference between highlighting generally common physical or cultural traits for the purpose of humourous stereotyping and highlighting those traits and then making allusions to their similarities with 'lower' life forms. that is racist. caricatures do not have to be racist, this one is.

racism doesn't have to be about hatred either, it is simply about treating people with different skin tones differently purely for the colour of their skin. depictions of black people as lazy, stupid, simian-like etc. is racist and is quite likely to lead to children forming ideas that this is right and proper unless they are shown that it is not and that is simply an example of how race has been treated in the past. hence the requirement that the book be placed in the adult section where the responsible adult can make a hopefully informed choice as to whether or not to show the book to their kids and let them read it.

we're judging this book by modern standards, not by the standards of its contemporaries, stop bringing them into it.

Thats immpossible how can we judge anything without comparing it? The point is was this book when written meant to be racist? I do not think so, are you suggesting that we just forget that and concntrate soley on our modern interpretation? If so that is truely the most foolish thing I have heard allday.


it's depicting blacks as a group as being inherently less intelligent than whites. and further, it's depicting black adults as inherently less intelligent than white children, and even (considering Snowy was always portrayed as having intelligence and generally thinking the same way as his master) than dogs. that is racist.

How is it? If we see say ohh I don't know Blue Peter perhaps on the TV where we see some white face teaching black kids in a class room, then that is also racist? You are getting hung up on the pictures with out a racist context it is just a picture, show me the context that makes this picture racist?


there's a difference between highlighting generally common physical or cultural traits for the purpose of humourous stereotyping and highlighting those traits and then making allusions to their similarities with 'lower' life forms. that is racist. caricatures do not have to be racist, this one is.

And again, are you saying that the Tin Tin books are not meant to be funny?


racism doesn't have to be about hatred either, it is simply about treating people with different skin tones differently purely for the colour of their skin. depictions of black people as lazy, stupid, simian-like etc. is racist and is quite likely to lead to children forming ideas that this is right and proper unless they are shown that it is not and that is simply an example of how race has been treated in the past. hence the requirement that the book be placed in the adult section where the responsible adult can make a hopefully informed choice as to whether or not to show the book to their kids and let them read it.

So then the Asterix books with their differant portaryals of differant nationalities are also racist?

You have said stop bringing the books contemperies into it, but then you leave out a whole sphere of evidance if we do that.

The book was written in the 1920, the pictures of black people are in keeping with others of the time, and yes it is true that racism was more widespread and institutionaly accepted back then, but unless you can show that the depctions in this book where intended to foster racial hatred or intolerance then I just don't see it.

Thats immpossible how can we judge anything without comparing it? The point is was this book when written meant to be racist? I do not think so, are you suggesting that we just forget that and concntrate soley on our modern interpretation? If so that is truely the most foolish thing I have heard allday.

Quick question for you. What time do you and I live in - the one in which the book was written, or modern day?

The book was written in the 1920, the pictures of black people are in keeping with others of the time, and yes it is true that racism was more widespread and institutionaly accepted back then, but unless you can show that the depctions in this book where intended to foster racial hatred or intolerance then I just don't see it.

I guess racism is OK as long as it's imported from a time when racism was OK..?

Thats immpossible how can we judge anything without comparing it? The point is was this book when written meant to be racist? I do not think so, are you suggesting that we just forget that and concntrate soley on our modern interpretation? If so that is truely the most foolish thing I have heard allday.
you are either deliberately misunderstanding what i am saying or it you that is being foolish. i was not saying that a comaprison with contemporary cartoons is irrelevant for judging it's relative levels of racism. the fact is the cartoon is being sold alongside modern books in a modern bookstore, therefore it must be judged by our modern standards as to whether or not it is racist. maybe it wasn't racist back then and maybe the author had no intention to be racist, but the fact is that it's clearly racist by modern standards.

How is it? If we see say ohh I don't know Blue Peter perhaps on the TV where we see some white face teaching black kids in a class room, then that is also racist? You are getting hung up on the pictures with out a racist context it is just a picture, show me the context that makes this picture racist? i already have, it's not about white teaching black, it's about relative ages and the topic of the lecture. that is the context that you seem intent to ignore.

And again, are you saying that the Tin Tin books are not meant to be funny?

So then the Asterix books with their differant portaryals of differant nationalities are also racist?
i think you must be deliberately misunderstanding me, you are completely ignoring the way i distinguished between the caricatures of asterix and the caricature displayed here in tin tin.

You have said stop bringing the books contemperies into it, but then you leave out a whole sphere of evidance if we do that.

The book was written in the 1920, the pictures of black people are in keeping with others of the time, and yes it is true that racism was more widespread and institutionaly accepted back then, but unless you can show that the depctions in this book where intended to foster racial hatred or intolerance then I just don't see it.

this has already been addressed by me and now Greater Trostia as well. i am almost sure you are being willfully ignorant.

Quick question for you. What time do you and I live in - the one in which the book was written, or modern day?

What has that got to do with anything? Do you really not see that we have to measure this along side it's contempories to get the full picture?



I guess racism is OK as long as it's imported from a time when racism was OK..?

Again whats the point of this comment? Is that what I said? Did I allued to it?
Say 100 years or so ago we used to put kids up the chimney.
We can all agree that we shouldn't do that now, indeed if I was to see somebody trying to do that I would be most discusted. However if you where to show me a picture that represents such a thing, I would look at it and go *shrug* that sorta shit happend in them days.

How I view that picture, I have to take into account the era from which it came.

What has that got to do with anything? Do you really not see that we have to measure this along side it's contempories to get the full picture?




Again whats the point of this comment? Is that what I said? Did I allued to it?
Say 100 years or so ago we used to put kids up the chimney.
We can all agree that we shouldn't do that now, indeed if I was to see somebody trying to do that I would be most discusted. However if you where to show me a picture that represents such a thing, I would look at it and go *shrug* that sorta shit happend in them days.

How I view that picture, I have to take into account the era from which it came.

it's all very well you saying these things with your general grounding in modern history that you must have grasped from whatever education system you went through. but you are not the target audience. children are. children who do not have you education or your grasp of the fact that such behaviour is no longer acceptable and should never have been.

you are either deliberately misunderstanding what i am saying or it you that is being foolish. i was not saying that a comaprison with contemporary cartoons is irrelevant for judging it's relative levels of racism. the fact is the cartoon is being sold alongside modern books in a modern bookstore, therefore it must be judged by our modern standards as to whether or not it is racist. maybe it wasn't racist back then and maybe the author had no intention to be racist, but the fact is that it's clearly racist by modern standards.

But it is not 'clearly racist' otherwise we wouldn't be doing this now would we.

Why don't we go find us some black members and ask them? If they in any way feel that the book upsets them or they find it to be racist in any way, then I'll put my hands up and say, Okay I guess I have been stupid.

But really I just don't see it.

But it is not 'clearly racist' otherwise we wouldn't be doing this now would we.

Why don't we go find us some black members and ask them? If they in any way feel that the book upsets them or they find it to be racist in any way, then I'll put my hands up and say, Okay I guess I have been stupid.

But really I just don't see it.

it does seem that you are very much in the minority though. it's clearly racist to the rest of us and the racism has been explained to you. you are determined to dismiss or ignore these explanations out of hand. there is little more i can now say other than we will have to agree to disagree until such a time as a thrid party comes along with an alternative point of view.

What has that got to do with anything? Do you really not see that we have to measure this along side it's contempories to get the full picture?


You tell me. What does the *modern world* and *modern interpretations* have to do with *modern reactions* to anything? Could it be because we live in that world? Well, I do. I guess you don't.

Again whats the point of this comment? Is that what I said? Did I allued to it?

Yep.


Say 100 years or so ago we used to put kids up the chimney.
We can all agree that we shouldn't do that now, indeed if I was to see somebody trying to do that I would be most discusted. However if you where to show me a picture that represents such a thing, I would look at it and go *shrug* that sorta shit happend in them days.

That would be because in your example, it's a factual portrayal of events.

In this example, it's a racist piece of fiction and the only fact involved is that racism was more socially acceptable when it was made. It's not now, so perhaps you can see why your analogy fails and why this garbage belongs in the same place as Der Sturmer.

Looney tunes did black-face (http://i3.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/92/49/4178_1_sbl.JPG) quite a lot. Needless to say those parts are edited out of syndication, but they did happen.

And don't forget about Mammy Two Shoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammy_Two_Shoes), albeit with a less offense voice, again, for syndication.

But This (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Indians_logo.png) still goes on. or do they not count?

it does seem that you are very much in the minority though. it's clearly racist to the rest of us and the racism has been explained to you. you are determined to dismiss or ignore these explanations out of hand. there is little more i can now say other than we will have to agree to disagree until such a time as a thrid party comes along with an alternative point of view.


It's not clearly racist to the rest of you. Certianly the OP does not feel that way and I agree, it is a case of PC going mad.

Ohh don't get me wrong, I'm a socialist/liberal myself, but pictures from the 1920's that depict black people how it's contemperies also do, is not in and of itself racist.

I saw no intent, I saw no fostering of racial tension, I saw some stereotyping, but really nothing that I would judge by todays standards to be racist.

Is a picture of a gollywog racist? Is the word gollywog racist?

I'm sorry I just disagree, I have seen much viler forms of racism in our present than this book contians. I guess as I said in my last post, lets ask some black people what they think.

Ohh don't get me wrong, I'm a socialist/liberal myself, but pictures from the 1920's that depict black people how it's contemperies also do, is not in and of itself racist.

...even if such portrayal is one of racial stereotyping and denigration?

I saw no intent, I saw no fostering of racial tension, I saw some stereotyping, but really nothing that I would judge by todays standards to be racist.

A racist stereotype is racist.


I'm sorry I just disagree, I have seen much viler forms of racism in our present than this book contians.

I've seen worse crimes than rape - I guess that means rape is not a crime.

A racist stereotype is racist.

I'm only gonna answer this one.

A stereotype built around race, or racial charectoristics is not inherently racist.

It is racist if it is designed, to foster racial hatred or intolerance.
I asked you about Asterix, and you agreed that the pictures within of Gauls with big noses was not racist. Although this is clearly a racial stereotype. Have you now changed you mind?

Or is it just a case of 'well these pictures where of black people'

I'm only gonna answer this one.

A stereotype built around race, or racial charectoristics is not inherently racist.


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Stereotyping based on racial characteristics is BY DEFINITION racist.

It is racist if it is designed, to foster racial hatred or intolerance.

Nonsense. According to you, a guy making a comment about how he thinks all Jews are big-nosed money-grubbing subhumans wouldn't be racist. After all, he wasn't "designing" to foster hatred, he was just asserting his opinion. And his opinion wouldn't be racist either.

You've narrowed your definition so much that it only applies to propaganda "designed" with the specific intent of inciting race riots.

Well, racism as defined by the dictionary is "racial prejudice or discrimination," and making pictures of black men as big-lipped, stupid, lazy monkeys IS FUCKING RACIAL PREJUDICE. Period.

Anything else I can help you with, perhaps you'd like me to explain why up is the opposite of down?

I asked you about Asterix, and you agreed that the pictures within of Gauls with big noses was not racist.

no, you're thinking of someone else.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Stereotyping based on racial characteristics is BY DEFINITION racist.



Nonsense. According to you, a guy making a comment about how he thinks all Jews are big-nosed money-grubbing subhumans wouldn't be racist. After all, he wasn't "designing" to foster hatred, he was just asserting his opinion. And his opinion wouldn't be racist either.

You've narrowed your definition so much that it only applies to propaganda "designed" with the specific intent of inciting race riots.

Well, racism as defined by the dictionary is "racial prejudice or discrimination," and making pictures of black men as big-lipped, stupid, lazy monkeys IS FUCKING RACIAL PREJUDICE. Period.

Anything else I can help you with, perhaps you'd like me to explain why up is the opposite of down?



no, you're thinking of someone else.


Ohh keep ya hair on!

So Asterix is racist? Chris Rock a well known black American comedian, when he talks about niggers, that is also racist?

And if we are talking dictionary definitions racial predujdice is:

Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial or national group

A cartoon picture of a black man with big lips is certianly stereotyping, but predujiced along lines of race, no not at all.

You say I have narrowed my definition down, I suggest that you have actualy widedned your deffinition up, so that any picture of a black man is racist.

Can I perhaps help you to be less fluffy?

So Asterix is racist? Chris Rock a well known black American comedian, when he talks about niggers, that is also racist?

is Asterix and Chris Rock the subject at hand? No?

And if we are talking dictionary definitions racial predujdice is:

Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial or national group

A cartoon picture of a black man with big lips is certianly stereotyping, but predujiced along lines of race, no not at all.

Wow. Just - wow. Pictures of black men, made to look like sub-human monkeys, each one portrayed as being stupid and lazy - no racism there.

Wow.

You say I have narrowed my definition down, I suggest that you have actualy widedned your deffinition up, so that any picture of a black man is racist.

I've used the Merriam Webster dictionary definition. You've used the pull-out-of-your-ass definition.

Can I perhaps help you to be less fluffy?

Yeah, you could stop constructing arguments out of fail.