• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pippi Longstocking and 6 other supposedly racist children's characters

Kobie said:
Of course they are -- government on a small-time local scale. Again, in the context of this discussion, why does it matter.
Click to expand...

So, you're ok with government book burning, as long as it's not the Feds?
 
Hatuey said:
Who said you did? We're laughing at your use of any of these words: nazi, socialism, hitler, goebbels, propaganda etc.
Click to expand...

Sounds like I hit close to home.
 
apdst said:
So, you're ok with government book burning, as long as it's not the Feds?
Click to expand...

....

Who, exactly, is burning anything here?

apdst said:
Sounds like I hit close to home.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, pointing out the absurdity of asinine Nazi comparisons means those comparisons are accurate!
 
Kobie said:
....

Who, exactly, is burning anything here?



Ah yes, pointing out the absurdity of asinine Nazi comparisons means those comparisons are accurate!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're scared?
 
Fiddytree said:
It may or may not go ahead of the child's head. It's not reading all that much into it. We can find all sorts of goodies in popular culture if you look. Again, it's not really shocking, and it's why I sometimes encourage it with a large chunk of films portraying the 1950s (they tend to use a New Left or Neomarxist framework). Conservatives aren't afraid of doing it, at least sometimes.

Image 1: The discussion seems to center on his status as a white man, against that of his people, for discontent.

Image 2: We can pull it back a bit. I wasn't simply stating racist, I was going after the notion that this wouldn't be offensive. So, on the first step, it certainly can be offensive if you are looking at it from the perspective of the colonized. Romanticization of Americanization projects in Indian Boarding Schools in the United States would likewise cause controversy, and not without merit. Next, to attach racial components to it, you have to recall that the Belgians, along with every great European power, did impart racial hierarchies to justify their empires. The choice to educate students about the great empire of Belgium is not just a choice of empire and the nation, it is a choice of cultural and racial superiority taken as a rather matter-of-fact view for the time period and place at which the story was written.

More on Image 2: Again, think about the subject from a post-colonialist perspective. If one were to strive to overcome one's national "sins" or perhaps address portrayals of other cultures in your popular culture, then this would be cause for offense. It's why we Americans criticize what the Japanese do in their classrooms regarding acknowledging or discussing the sins of their own empire (I'm especially thinking about the Chinese here), and do the same in many other countries.

Image 3: What about Tin-Tin gives him status? Is it his wealth? Is it his nationality?
Click to expand...

The idea that we have "sins" which need to be "atoned" for in the first place is a big part of the problem here.

It was a different time, with a different culture, and different values. There's no real need to take things much further than that within the context of "acceptable" literature.

I agree that simple analysis isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but the kind of value judgments you're throwing into this simply are not necessary. Wringing our hands over past injustices that people living today had no role in committing isn't going to help anyone.

It simply serves to instill counter-productive cultural self-loathing.

Trying to actively cover up evidence of them is even more troublesome, as it gives people living today an inaccurate view of who our ancestors actually were.

Hatuey said:
He's an out work teenage who goes around solving crimes all over the world. You tell me how accurate his portrayal is.
Click to expand...

Would the typical European visitor to a technologically primitive society be treated with special decorum, or wouldn't he?

Going by most historical examples, he most certainly would have.

I'll take simplistic Eurocentric perspective of complex issues for 600 Alex.
Click to expand...

If the people residing in a given society generally live in poverty, and lack access to basic necessities like indoor plumbing, electricity, clean water, and elementary education, then they just might need a helping hand every now and then. :roll:

It did. It has. Today, the only sense you'd have that the DRC was once owned by the Belgians is the modern day carnage handed down by Leopold.
Click to expand...

What's the problem then?

Unless of course the depiction of colonialism is one meant to whitewash the atrocities committed. You're being purposely obtuse.
Click to expand...

Again man, it was written during the 1930s. Most of the public's views on colonialist endeavors and the colonialist mindset would have been positive during this period. Trying to "white wash" this fact out of our society's cultural record isn't going to change it.

Take the attitudes the book expresses as being a product of their time and simply move on.

Revisionism, apologism, historical ignorance. That's what the rest of your post boils down to.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that you're not going to agree with everything you read. :shrug:

It doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to be banned.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Call it a day Fiddy. This guy is an apologist. He hides behind "in their context" and then ignores the colonial context not to mention completely dismisses barbaric history of the Belgian Congo (see Leopold) - which is a large part of the story's extensive context. Only on DP folks.
Click to expand...

Leopold was just misunderstood
 
Gathomas88 said:
It may or may not be. All I'm saying is that I really don't see "colonialism" as being particularly offensive in and of itself.
Click to expand...

In the context of the Belgium congo, there wasn't much to redeem it. It's probably the worst example of western colonialism one can cite, with leopold basically treatinG everyone and everything within it as his personal property, to do as he willed. It's little coincidence it served as the setting for Conrad's "heart of Darkness"
 
apdst said:
Go grab your copy of Mein Kampf and see.
Click to expand...

Lol, you're familiar with Nazi books. You know who else is familiar with those books? Nazis.
 
Hatuey said:
Call it a day Fiddy. This guy is an apologist. He hides behind "in their context" and then ignores the colonial context not to mention completely dismisses barbaric history of the Belgian Congo (see Leopold) - which is a large part of the story's extensive context. Only on DP folks.
Click to expand...

Dude doesn't get context or nuance.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
In the context of the Belgium congo, there wasn't much to redeem it. It's probably the worst example of western colonialism one can cite, with leopold basically treatinG everyone and everything within it as his personal property, to do as he willed. It's little coincidence it served as the setting for Conrad's "heart of Darkness"
Click to expand...

When colonial France and colonial Britain are telling you to chill the **** out, you can tell something ain't going right.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
In the context of the Belgium congo, there wasn't much to redeem it. It's probably the worst example of western colonialism one can cite, with leopold basically treatinG everyone and everything within it as his personal property, to do as he willed. It's little coincidence it served as the setting for Conrad's "heart of Darkness"
Click to expand...

No, I absolutely agree. Humanitarian conditions in the Congo were appalling and completely inexcusable.

However, you can't really blame a silly children's book for that.

As I said, it was a product of its time.
 
Gathomas88 said:
No, I absolutely agree. Humanitarian conditions in the Congo were appalling and completely inexcusable.

However, you can't really blame a silly children's book for that.
Click to expand...

double_facepalm.png
 
sangha said:
double_facepalm.png
Click to expand...

They were primarily objecting to the attitudes and cultural ideas presented in the work, not the connection to the Belgian Congo. That was tossed in as an afterthought.

Frankly, they weren't even complaining about overt expressions of these ideas either, but the fact that they existed as underlying themes in the book's plot.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't find the idea of a book being written from a perspective that I happen to disagree with as being all that offensive; especially not when the book in question happens to be almost a century old. It was a product of its time. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Hell, many of the ideas they are objecting to here continue to persist even in modern media. The idea of an "invincible almighty white man teaching helpless natives and becoming their leader" remains a popular theme to this very day.

Ever seen Avatar, for instance?
 
Gathomas88 said:
They were primarily objecting to the attitudes and cultural ideas presented in the work, not the connection to the Belgian Congo. That was tossed in as an afterthought.
Click to expand...

Is that why you tried to refute the idea that the colonialization of the Congo was caused by a children's book, even though no one argued that?


Frankly, they weren't even complaining about overt expressions of these ideas either, but the fact that they existed as underlying themes in the book's plot.
Click to expand...

Because there's nothing overt about a white teacher telling Congolese students that Belgium is "your country" :roll:


I'm sorry, but I simply don't find the idea of a book being written from a perspective that I happen to disagree with as being all that offensive; especially not when the book in question happens to be almost a century old. It was a product of its time. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Hell, many of the ideas they are objecting to here continue to persist even in modern media. The idea of an "invincible almighty white man teaching helpless natives and becoming their leader" remains a popular theme to this very day.

Ever seen Avatar, for instance?
Click to expand...

Dude, did you see the same movie as I did? The "invicible almighty white man" was portrayed as an evil (would be) conqueror
 
sangha said:
Is that why you tried to refute the idea that the colonialization of the Congo was caused by a children's book, even though no one argued that?
Click to expand...

The average child won't have even heard of the Belgian Congo, let alone connect it to the harmless activities Hat was complaining about.

Because there's nothing overt about a white teacher telling Congolese students that Belgium is "your country"
Click to expand...

Not any more than watching Roman Legionnaires slaughter Frenchmen and Germans en masse like you see in any number of "sand and sandals" flicks. You'll notice that no one seems to have a problem with that. :roll:

You can think whatever you want, but the level of outrage here still strikes me as being overtly silly.

There are worse things in that book to get worked up about than the fact that a white man is shown in front of chalk board talking to natives.

Dude, did you see the same movie as I did? The "invicible almighty white man" was portrayed as an evil (would be) conqueror
Click to expand...

I was referring to the main character, obviously.

Sure, he might be a personification of "white guilt" coming to save some goofy "noble savage" archetype from Imperialist oppression. However, it doesn't change the fact that the natives ultimately required a white man to come and rescue them from their oppressors in the first place.

That is ultimately just as bad as anything else that has been presented here. It simply happens to be the case that, rather than being a "great white hunter," he's a "great white martyr" instead.
 
Last edited:
The idea that we have "sins" which need to be "atoned" for in the first place is a big part of the problem here.

It was a different time, with a different culture, and different values. There's no real need to take things much further than that within the context of "acceptable" literature.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think you would be running into the relativist extreme of a valid historical orientation toward historicism. I mean, we certainly instruct young people differently about popular culture regarding slavery, and I do not think outside of Gone with the Wind we tolerate happy portrayals of the so-called "peculiar institution."

I agree that simple analysis isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but the kind of value judgments you're throwing into this simply are not necessary. Wringing our hands over past injustices that people living today had no role in committing isn't going to help anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely making value judgments so much as showing how in the 1940s, certain value judgments were placed from the Belgians onto the Congo colony and its peoples. The fact that post-colonialists frequently have an agenda themselves is something you should certainly keep in mind, but it is frequently not my concern.

Trying to actively cover up evidence of them is even more troublesome, as it gives people living today an inaccurate view of who our ancestors actually were.
Click to expand...

I certainly do not advocate that we eradicate the existence of historical documents (in fact I'm still weeping over just that over my own research topic), however, what you and I tried to bring up needs further examination.

If we can accept the concept that acculturation of Belgians, Europeans, and North Americans to accept various precepts of colonialism existed everywhere from popular culture to the schools, then let's not toss aside the virtues of indoctrination so quickly. Afterall, you're more or less defending the existence of these materials in public view, partially in deference to it being historical, and partly because to toss them aside induces cultural self-loathing. Doesn't this indicate that you are in favor, to some extent, in indoctrination as the post-colonialists are?

My own perspective is perhaps to some extent opposite of what the post-colonialists want, but I still use their insights to argue in favor of what I may accept as perhaps "benign" nationalism. As Orwellian as that may sound, I learned from the post-structuralists and the post-modernists that indoctrination is everywhere anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
The average child won't have even heard of the Belgian Congo, let alone connect it to the harmless activities Hat was complaining about.
Click to expand...

And so that's why you pointed out that the Congo was not colonized because of a children's book? Because Hatuey never said it was? :lamo


Not anymore than watching Roman Legionnaires slaughter Frenchmen and Germans en masse like you see in any number of "sand and sandals" flicks. You'll notice that no one seems to have a problem with that. :roll:
Click to expand...

Which one of those three groups belong to a different race?


There are worse things in that book to get worked up about than the fact that a white man is shown in front of chalk board talking to natives.
Click to expand...

Yes, it had nothing to do with what the white man said :roll:



I was referring to the main character, obviously.

Sure, he might be a personification of "white guilt" coming to save some goofy "noble savage" archetype from Imperialist oppression. However, it doesn't change the fact that the natives ultimately needed the help of a white man to overcome their oppressors in the first place.

That is ultimately just as bad as anything else that has been presented here. Instead of being a "great white hunter," he simply happens to be a "great white martyr."
Click to expand...

Umm, the "great white martyr", as you call him, doesn't become a leader. Instead, he goes native
 
sangha said:
And so that's why you pointed out that the Congo was not colonized because of a children's book? Because Hatuey never said it was?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever said that it was. :roll:

I said that people should stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Which one of those three groups belong to a different race?
Click to expand...

Who cares? The ancient world didn't really have a conception of "race" anyway.

The simple fact of the matter is that those works are overtly glorifying imperialist oppression, and the fact that the Romans clearly viewed all other cultures and peoples as being inferior to their own.

If the narrative of European supremacy is really so offensive as to require that entire works of literature be banned, why should the narrative of Roman supremacy be any different?

Simply put, because certain people are still "butt hurt" over the one, where enough time has passed for them to forget about the other.

People can be that way if they want, but I'm not going to hesitate to point out the silliness of their outrage.

Yes, it had nothing to do with what the white man said :roll:
Click to expand...

Their land was owned by Belgium at the time. The author was clearly working under the assumption that the natives were subjects of the Belgian crown like any others.

Umm, the "great white martyr", as you call him, doesn't become a leader. Instead, he goes native
Click to expand...

Sure he does. He becomes one with the natives, and for no other reason than that he happens to be a spunky white guy (and therefore an audience proxy) he quickly shows himself to be a better native than the actual natives, almost singlehandedly leads them to victory over their enemies, and becomes their leader by the time the end credits roll.

He is very much a "mighty whitey."
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
I don't believe I ever said that it was. :roll:

I said that people should stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Click to expand...

Right. No one said it was.

So you felt the need to point out that it wasn't even though no one said that it was




Who cares? The ancient world didn't really have a conception of "race" anyway.
Click to expand...

Which makes your comparison of Congo and wars about Romans pretty irrelevant, like your statement about how the colonization of Congo wasn't caused by a children's book.

The simple fact of the matter is that those works are overtly glorifying imperialist oppression, and the fact that the Romans clearly viewed all other cultures and peoples as being inferior to their own.
Click to expand...

No, the matter is not simple, nor is it merely about glorifying imperialist oppression. This is the third straw man you've raised

If the narrative of European supremacy is really so offensive as to require that entire works of literature be banned, why should the narrative of Roman supremacy be any different?
Click to expand...

For one thing, the book isn't being banned; it's being restricted for children. For another, the Roman Empire is not around to colonize anyone. Finally, the Roman Empire has nothing to do with this issue, and even if it did, that wouldn't make it the TinTin story OK.


Their land was owned by Belgium at the time. The author was clearly working under the assumption that the natives were subjects of the Belgian crown like any others.
Click to expand...

:lamo



Sure he does. He becomes one with the natives, and for no other reason than that he happens to be a spunky white guy (and therefore audience proxy) he quickly shows himself to be a better native than the actual natives, almost singlehandedly leads them to victory over their enemies, and then becomes their leader.

He is very much a "mighty whitey."
Click to expand...

Umm, no. He doesn't show himself to be a better native, he doesn't single handedly lead them to victory, he doesn't become their leader, and his life is saved by one of the natives near the end of the movie.

You don't seem to know anything about what you're talking about
 
Rocketman said:
OMFG!


Say it ain't so, Pippi
Books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have long been banned in many schools and libraries over alleged racism. Could Pippi Longstocking be next? According to one theologian, Astrid Lindgren's classic children's novels about the pig-tailed adventurer feature unsavory "colonial racist stereotypes." Pippi joins a long list of surprising children's characters who have been accused of racism. From Babar to the Smurfs, here's a look:

Pippi Longstocking and 6 other supposedly racist children's characters - The Week
Click to expand...

I never read the books, but I vaguely remember seeing a movie about Pippi Longstocking. Didn't realize there was anything racist about it, but like I said I barely remember.
 
Gathomas88 said:
...
I was referring to the main character, obviously.

Sure, he might be a personification of "white guilt" coming to save some goofy "noble savage" archetype from Imperialist oppression. However, it doesn't change the fact that the natives ultimately required a white man to come and rescue them from their oppressors in the first place.

That is ultimately just as bad as anything else that has been presented here. It simply happens to be the case that, rather than being a "great white hunter," he's a "great white martyr" instead.
Click to expand...

:shock: Holy crap!!! Avatar is one of my favorite movies of all time, and reading your interpretation of it is making me want to poke out my eyes with a pickle fork!! It's worse than when my born-again daughter and her husband tried to convince me that The Chronicles of Narnia was actually a Bible story, only Jesus was played by a lion! (No, I'm not kidding... sadly)

Dude. Whatever you're smoking, please share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom