Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - tintin in the congo (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/150692-tintin-congo.html)

tintin in the congo

i ran across an article this morning about a lawsuit that was filed in the context of the eu court system by an accountant living in the congo against the publisher of tintin in the congo. the argument is that the comic is racist and that it should not be sold, particularly not in the congo.

this is apparently not a new controversy.
here's some stuff from the summer of 2007.

Quote:

Let Tintin the racist speak
India Knight

I lived in Brussels until I was nine. One of my abiding memories is of a school trip to the Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, a vast, grandiose building built by King Leopold II, who also ordered the construction of the equally outsized Palais de Justice, which became Hitler’s favourite building.

Leopold II was in effect given the Congo to use as his personal fiefdom by a conference of the European powers in 1885; even by the colonial standards of the time, his disastrous rule in the Congo was so unbelievably cruel, bloody and wicked that the Belgian government took it back in 1908 (to say things didn’t improve much would be a masterpiece of understatement).

Anyway, my memory of the museum, which feels like false memory syndrome because it now sounds horrible to the point of insanity, concerns a black human leg used as an umbrella stand.

The museum, which contains extraordinary treasures looted from central Africa, and the Congo specifically, is reinventing itself (in 2007!) and undergoing renovation. It will reemerge, sanitised, in 2010, minus the commentary explaining that Africans were ape-like, primitive folks – savages, really, and not even noble ones – and the Belgians their warm-hearted, paternalistic benefactors.

The point of this is that it took Belgium an exceptionally long time to accept the fact that its colonial past was so appalling and mired in butchery that it horrified other colonial powers. It apologised to the people of the Congo in 2002 for its role in the 1961 assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but not for its support of Joseph Mobutu’s dictatorship – or for, well, the past 150 years.

When I was a child you never saw black people in Brussels, although there were many refugees from the Congo. Like the Moroccans in another part of town – and like medieval Jews – they lived in a ghetto from which they didn’t venture. If you were an educated middle-class person, it was considered acceptable to speak in a comedy African accent to illustrate some joke or other.

When one of my Belgian cousins married a woman from Uganda a decade or so later – the family gave the impression they would have preferred him to express an interest in paedophilia – the death of a relative the couple had argued with was solemnly blamed on long-distance “juju” and “voodoo” by my family, who are generally perfectly nice people – bankers and lawyers, well travelled, well read, not stupid. This was the 1980s.

On a trip to Brussels a fortnight ago I was glad to see that attitudes have changed dramatically though I still wondered about the provenance of African treasures in the antique shops.

I’m sharing this to give the furore over Tintin in the Congo, by the Belgian artist Hergé, a bit of context. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has backed a call for the book to be banned. French and Belgian children can often quote from it – I know I can, as with Asterix – but it was published in colour in Britain only in 2005, with a foreword explaining the colonial attitudes prevalent at the time it was written, in 1931. The book was redrawn in 1964 when Hergé removed several references to the Congo being a Belgian colony.

In later years he spoke of his regret at aspects of the book, explaining that he was echoing the ignorant views of the time. His views changed; by 1936 The Blue Lotus had a strong antiimperialist message.

Last week David Enright, a human rights lawyer whose wife is black, came across the book in Borders and was outraged by what the CRE described as “imagery and words of hideous racial prejudice, where the ‘savage natives’ look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles . . . It beggars belief that in this day and age Borders would think it acceptable to sell and display it”.

Borders will now put the book in its adult comics section; Waterstone’s said it would consider a similar move; WH Smith sells it on its website, with a sticker recommending readers be 16 or over. Not good enough, says the CRE: the only acceptable place for the book is in a museum, “with a big sign saying old-fashioned, racist claptrap”.

I don’t agree. The museum in question would have to be awfully big with its basic assumption being that people were so stupid that they had to be protected from the content of cartoons written 80 years ago – that is, protected from history on the grounds that some of it wasn’t nice. It would contain a great deal of Hergé’s oeuvre – yellow Chinese people, bright red Indians, sinister Soviets, creepy Incas, fat, hysterical women who never stop singing, thick people, absent-minded professors, caricatured sailors.

You’d have to make room for all the Asterix books, where the languid, effete British stop fighting in order to have a cup of hot water; where the anally retentive Swiss are constantly cleaning, winding up cuckoo clocks and making fondue; where the Belgians are pugilistic, food-obsessed oafs.

But why stop there? You could chuck in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, lots of Kipling, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell on class grounds; practically every novel written in the past 200 years on feminist ones; The Tiger Who Came to Tea because the mother is a domestic drudge, a victim of paternalism, a pathetic role model and bourgeois to boot. In fact you could make a huge bonfire and burn every book that exists on the basis that you can guarantee someone will find it offensive.

Or you could be intelligent, examine context, and use it as a springboard to explain racism/colonialism/history/ misogyny/the class system to your children. Just because something is unpalatable doesn’t mean it has to be erased. Erasing it only serves to make it outré and desirable - sales have since rocketed by 3,800% on Amazon.

Tintin in the Congo is a product of its time. It correctly represents attitudes that were prevalent in 1931 (and, in Belgium, well beyond it). Nobody is denying those attitudes were grotesquely offensive, or that literature – and art in general – doesn’t contain an embarrassment of material that causes any brown or black-skinned adult to cringe, or any brown or black-skinned child to feel miserably sad. But that doesn’t mean the sensible thing to do with such material is to wipe it out and pretend it never existed.

Books stand as testament to the errors and horrors of history. They are vitally important. The CRE’s reaction is misguided.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2076264.ece

here's a blog which contains several links to other discussions and some images, if you're interested:
blog.rightreading.com Tintin and Racism

what do you think about this?
do you think that tintin in the congo should be withdrawn because it is a racist text, or are you more inclined to agree with india knight (above) that the racism should not be hidden away, but rather should continue to be available as a point of departure for thinking, maybe, about how such a phenomenon can take shape in a given context, appear to be normal, continue...

why?

I read the book as a child, every French kid loved Tintin.
But I do remember how Africans were portrayed, and if you were to see it you might find it offensive.

Some Tintin fans say that it's valuable as a work of fiction because it gives us an insight on how Belgians, and Europeans in general, viewed the rest of the world, especially the colonies.

However, just looking at how Africans are drawn in this book does make me quite embarrassed.

http://www.lebdvore.com/TINTIN/tintin_au_congo1.jpg

It sounds like an example of embarrasment - white guilt leading to censorship not because of a desire to protect others from the harm these depictions might cause, but a desire to protect oneself from discomfort. I see no legitimate reason for censorship here.

I don't either. We learn from our mistakes.

I grew up in a racist society, but as I have aged, I despise racism more and more.

I don't believe the books should be censored, but I really hate that 'guilt argument' people try to throw around whenever a question of ethical propriety in regards to the history of racism is brought up. Both reactions are, well, reactionary.

More importantly than whether the books are published or not, is whether people (particularly white people in Western society) really, really understand what we did and, in some cases, continue to do to native cultures around the world. Most keenly and notably what we did in the continent of Africa. I think far too many of us do not, making the real offense the fact that so many people will likely pick this book up and never realize the magnitude of horror and injustice it represents. That's my thinking.

there are few situations more appalling than the adventures of the belgians in the congo. seriously.
the barbarism of that particular colonial period was unparalleled.

Belgian Congo | Colonial Genocides | Genocide Studies Program | Yale University

estimates of the carnage run up to 10 million:
The Butcher of Congo

this just to give an idea of the magnitude of what's being referenced here.

no more time at the moment...

...not to mention the part the US played in the Congo Crisis of the early '60's during which time we orchestrated the assassination of their democratically elected president in order to install Joseph Mobutu, who spent the next 30 years pillaging the country's resources while cooperating with US and Belgium corporate interests in exchange for financial aid - which he also kept for himself - while the people of his country starved. Nice.

To anyone: why was it the europeans who exploited the africans and not the africans exploiting the europeans?

Technological imbalance and imbalance in the power of nation-states versus tribes.

its certainly racist to modern eyes, but it shouldnt be censored and selling it shouldnt be a crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inBOIL (Post 2698156)

Technological imbalance and imbalance in the power of nation-states versus tribes.

Technological imbalances, what do you mean? Africans could build things, too. They built boats and weapons and buildings.
As far as nation-states vs tribes, are you talking about a numerical superiority of the former or something else?

I loved tintin books when I was a kid. This is hardly a case for banning, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2698145)

To anyone: why was it the europeans who exploited the africans and not the africans exploiting the europeans?

The reasons are plainly seen. Why you're asking - that's the mystery.

Because instead of saying, "Oh those poor people" or "Oh those mean people" I find underlying issues more interesting. And there are always underlying issues. I'm not referring to racial superiority or any of that nonsense, I'm talking about tactics. For example, in a boxing match you have 2 fighters, of the same weight, strength and aggressiveness, each bent on subduing the other through physical violence. Yet one wins, one loses...and there are concrete, objective reasons for it (better jab, quicker feet, more effective combinations, better defense). This is what I'm talking about, but I'm not sure if nationstates or technical superiority had anything to do with it. The American Indian had access to rifles, and fought with just as much if not more ferocity and cunning than white men. They also, like the Africans, had superior knowledge of the local environment. Yet both lost to an outside force and I like to understand the reasons why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2698223)

It has a lot to do with that thing some dread the most: the state. Large centralized European states could mobilize resources and people from a vast portion of land, either hiring or compelling through the draft a significant number of people to fight for them. Individual tribes could win a number of battles but in the long run they couldn't match the power of a state that could continually draw soldiers from a much larger population.

It is not surprising that most of the major colonizers were also some of the first places to be organized as a nation state, like Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom.

Well, I can think dippin for covering the major territory and only add that the major reason for conquest was, of course, almost inconceivable wealth in the form of resources - human and otherwise.

Does might make right?

shoot, the next thing ya know, little black sambo will be racist..

Re: powerclown: I'd lay down a viewpoint similar to that expressed herein:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29.../b054PB_lg.jpg

Re: the OP - I don't think that censorship is the way to go, any more than I agree with Bill Cosby holding on to the rights to "Song of the South" and refusing to let it be seen. That said, I understand the aversion to some of the messages, and the desire to not be exposed to it.

It should also be remembered, when discussing Africa, that many African tribes worked with the Europeans to exploit other Africans. The slave trade made many black Africans quite wealthy.

This is not to downplay the involvement of the Eurpoeans in this system but rather point out that it is more complicated than it is usually portrayed (things usually are).

To me, the whole reason why they lost and Europe won is simply this:

Rome clearly demonstrated that you need a well organised big country that can mobilise big groups to fight in tactics.
After Rome crumbled, all European countries remembered the lesson well.

Before, they fought in loose tribes, duels or free-for-all fights.
After, they attacked in regiments.

Africa to my knowledge, did not have this "lesson" drilled into them. They remained organised in tribes, and like Charlatan points out: if you have different tribes, you can use them against eachother easily.

Dippin: major colonizers had nothing to do with if they were early organised as a nation state. In fact Belgium didn't exist till 1830. Well into colonisation already.
Major colonizers had more to do with if they had a good naval force.

As far as the comic goes: it's definitly racist, it definitly should be kept in sight, to remember what was.
If fact, Hergé himself underwent a change in his views after a while. He didn't call for a ban on his own work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nisses (Post 2698428)

Dippin: major colonizers had nothing to do with if they were early organised as a nation state. In fact Belgium didn't exist till 1830. Well into colonisation already.
Major colonizers had more to do with if they had a good naval force.

As far as the comic goes: it's definitly racist, it definitly should be kept in sight, to remember what was.
If fact, Hergé himself underwent a change in his views after a while. He didn't call for a ban on his own work.

And good naval forces depended on a nation state. There is a reason Portugal was so crucial in naval explorations, and that is that they were one of the first nation states around. It takes a nation state to organize the systematic financing and organizing of a naval fleet.

Nation states were crucial for colonization. Even your example, Belgium only started with colonization after being organized as a nation state. It stands to reason that the earliest a territory organized itself as a nation, the bigger the headstart in colonization (and it's interesting to note the impact that colonization and imperialism had on WWI and the alliances formed then). Portugal, Spain, France and England were the main colonizers, and all organized as nation states before 1500.

GGS: a great read, some very interesting points are brought up and I enjoyed reading it but I had some issues with it, mainly that you can't blame environment/geography for shaping the course of history. Too politically correct, too marxist, not enough credit given to individual qualities such as intelligence and ingenuity. Written by an academic to impress other academics. I enjoyed Steven Pinker's 'Blank Slate' which I think is more pertinent with this. Also regarding the pre-eminence of nationstates in warfare, I would point out the adventures of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun, both of who led devastatingly effective tribal armies. Genghis Khan 'colonized' just about everything west of China into central Europe, while Roma also was sacked by nomadic tribes.

there's no way around the importance of the modern nation-state in all this, if only because it centralized tax gathering which enabled expansions of military forces (creation of standing armies, technological developments--all that)...you also can't get around the development of capitalist-style industry and it's requirements for raw materials (the primary driver of the real horror in the congo was rubber and the expanding requirements for it that attended technological developments---sorry to be so abstract about it, but we're talking general processes and there we are).

a professionalized heavily armed european style military operates on a different rationality than most of what they encountered as they plowed through africa. which isn't to say that the european militaries had an easy time of it. they didn't: but they really weren't concerned with such nicities as playing by any rules of war. this is one area where the equation of civilization and europe really does end up being a matter of who has the larger metal toys and--more importantly--which story your thinking in terms of when you make judgments like who is and is not civilized.

if i have some time, i'll hunt up a pretty big collection of stories gathered from the congo in the late 19th-early 20th century about the arrival of the belgians as understood from various viewpoints (which are in general congolese because of the result of this...but the groups were themselves quite different one from the other). these make the last point i'm making pretty obvious: the europeans were not playing by the same rules as were assumed to be in place amongst the people they encountered and massacred in very significant numbers. limits on conduct for example that were assumed the europeans didn't know about and did not adhere to, particularly not in the earlier periods (its more complicated than this, really...for example missionaries were not of one mind, colonial administrators were not of one mind, etc etc etc) this is an area where racism and christianity converged with military organization and technology in order to make wholesale massacre not particularly a problem.

[[[edit, a bit later on...i found the collection of statements i was looking for, but i forgot along the way that the text is in french and not translated so far as i know. but if you read french, this is really interesting stuff:

http://www.aequatoria.be/archives_pr...h/EGindex.html

the only english bits that i found translate the title on the opening page. i could be wrong about the extent of it though, but i don't think i am.]]]

anyway, it makes little sense to try to separate these processes from the history of the 19th century.

and i remain a bit mystified by what powerclown is actually asking about, but it's getting clearer. maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindles (Post 2698197)

I loved tintin books when I was a kid.

You should be banned and withdrawn from circulation as a result.

;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2698167)

Europeans had superior technology (mainly better weapons and ships) that allowed them an advantage in a conflict. Their arrangement into nation-states gave them greater numbers as well as greater political unity, which allowed them to project more power overseas. The combination of the two simply made them too powerful to resist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2698223)

The American Indian had access to rifles, and fought with just as much if not more ferocity and cunning than white men. They also, like the Africans, had superior knowledge of the local environment. Yet both lost to an outside force and I like to understand the reasons why.

Pig mentioned Guns, Germs and Steel and that's a good place to start. I don't hold with everything Diamond says, but he is right in that Europeans and Asians such as the Chinese had some significant advantages in terms of the raw materials, agricultural possibilities, domesticatable herd animals and simple geography over the natives of the Americas and Australia that allowed them to develop certain technologies and societal advantages.

I'm against the banning of books, especially one like this. You get to learn from this.
Though if I were African and seeing my ancestors depicted in this way, I don't know how I'd feel. My ancestors in comics are the Asterix guys.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...z/asterix1.jpg