Herge’s classic character was in a bit of hot water last week as both The Telegraph and The Guardian reported that “Tintin in the Congo,” one of the boy reporter’s earliest adventures, was removed from the shelves of the children’s section in U.K. Borders’ stores after The Comission for Racial Equality complained about its content:
The book, which includes a scene where Tintin is made chief of an African village because he is a “good white man” and a black woman bowing to Tintin saying: “White man very great … white mister is big juju man!” was highly offensive, a spokeswoman from the commission said.
“This book contains imagery and words of hideous racial prejudice, where the ‘savage natives’ look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles,” she said.
“How and why do Borders think that it’s OK to peddle such racist material? This is potentially highly offensive to a great number of people.”
The book will be moved to the adult section of the stores.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:54 am
It’s a good thing Dark Horse put a disclaimer on the Astro Boy comics, or else they would be in the same trouble.
Can we now work on getting “Gone With the Wind” moved to the “adult” DVD section?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Apparently there IS a disclaimer on this Tintin book also.
I will only mention that this particular book is the best-selling (and most loved) Tintin book in… Africa! ‘Nuff said.
Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)
July 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I like racism being used for a good laugh or two.
just look inside a copy of angry youth comix.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:19 am
They could just have Whoopi Goldberg do a little blurb about cultural values of the era in which the books were produced and how its not ok but its better that it stands as a historical document and great piece of graphic fiction than it be consigned to the PC bin.
Wrked for the Looney Tunes box set.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:28 am
The CRE is just being silly, but I have no problem with the decision to remove it from the children’s section. That’s not censorship, it’s just appropriate shelving. Of course it’s a product of its time and it has to be seen in that light, but the fact remains that it contains a lot of material that nobody in their right mind would include in a children’s book today. If Marvel or DC did a story featuring black characters who looked like that, they’d be crucified, and rightly so. You can easily defend it as a book of genuine historical interest that outweighs its unfortunate period attitudes, but I don’t think you can sell it as a straightforward piece of children’s entertainment any more.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I don’t think anyone should be “outraged” by this stuff. The natives WERE savages. And they don’t speak like idiots; they speak like people from a simple, hunter-gatherer society with no prior knowledge of the English language. As for how they look; to me they look like traditional caricatures, which always involve the enlargement of prominent features such as ears, noses and lips. The problem with this material lies not within the material itself, but the reaction to it by narrow minded, politically correct, watchdogs who want us all to celebrate diversity without calling attention to any of it. My opinion.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I agree that a disclaimer and/or introductory essay should be included and it should only be introduced to children after a certain age and then within its historical context. But the idea of editing out or somehow doctoring the offensive parts is creepy and sends out an improper message about the relationship with historical fact. It’s an endorsement of denial.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
The problem I have with this, is that it proceeds along the same assumption the anti-porn crusaders and others make: that children are fragile creatures who can be horribly damaged if they see racism/nudity/violence/smoking or anything else that’s bad in a work of popular entertainment. Everything that isn’t morally upright must be purged from children’s books, because, well, they’re read by *children*. And god forbid the children should ever be exposed to anything that isn’t perfect and good.
There’s something to be said for purging racism from current works (we certainly don’t need any more of it in the world), but I don’t see the value of locking away potentially offensive Tintin stories so only adults can read them. Not every lesson learned in life is positive – and frankly, I think that sometimes a lot more can be learned from early exposure to offensive concepts like racism when they spring upon you in a context where you’re not expecting them – like an old comic book. The world is not always a friendly place. Let the children read the book and draw their own conclusions, it’s better for everyone that way.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
As over there, over here.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Kevin, the books are hardly “locked away”; they’re just in a different section of the shop. There are no age restrictions on purchase: kids can still buy them, they simply have to look for them in the “graphic novels”, rather than “children’s” section.
The CRE are getting a little carried away, but the response seems appropriate enough for this kind of material.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Yes, Nick is right. The reference in the article to an “adult section” is wildly misleading. What “adult section”? Children can buy whatever books they want. Nobody is imposing a minimum age limit. The point of a children’s section is to identify books that are peculiarly suitable for children. It doesn’t mean that those are the only books children are allowed to buy.
All Borders have done is to remove the book from the children’s section and to file it with the graphic novels. What’s wrong with that?
Frankly, even if there was nothing remotely offensive in the book, it would STILL be more at home in the graphic novels section. If you went into a branch of Borders and wanted to buy a Tintin book, would you really expect to find it shelved next to “Miffy Goes Swimming”?
July 17th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Nick Evans: “Kevin, the books are hardly “locked away”; they’re just in a different section of the shop. There are no age restrictions on purchase: kids can still buy them, they simply have to look for them in the “graphic novels”, rather than “children’s” section.”
Well yes, that’s true. The books are still available, and Borders has the right to shelve things wherever it wants to. No doubt the bookseller views this as a business decision to avoid controversy. But my earlier comments were directed more toward this CRE group than the bookstores. It’s their desire to shame Borders into removing the book from sale that bothers me, as it’s just another form of censorship.
Paul O’Brien: “Frankly, even if there was nothing remotely offensive in the book, it would STILL be more at home in the graphic novels section. If you went into a branch of Borders and wanted to buy a Tintin book, would you really expect to find it shelved next to “Miffy Goes Swimming”?”
Had to look up Miffy on Google.
Since that particular book seems to be intended for very young (Preschool age?) children, my answer would have to be no. The Miffy readership is a bit young for Tintin.
But should Tintin be shelved with books intended for school age kids? Sure. The Tintin series is a great way for children to start learning about the world. Then, when they get old enough, they discover that Tintin (and a lot of other books) lied about certain things, and that becomes another lesson alogether.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:12 am
It’s perhaps worth pointing out that the CRE is not just a “group.” It’s a government body acting under the Race Relations Act.