'Little Black Sambo' flies off shelves

I'm trying to follow the "bouncing ball" here on who said what and it's getting a little confusing. After reading the last several posts (and priors), I think it was established that the version that recently came out has an African child in India...but, this is not the original Bannerman version. In hers we are NOT sure if she meant the black child as an African or as an Indian...correct?

I thought someone would refer to my post of 7/10 on an Amazon Review by the lady the grew up in Bangladesh and her interesting comments about the Indian "customs" of giving people nicknames; and how her brother's Indian friend "Kalo" was given that nickname which means "black" because he had skin she described as "midnight dark skin." Further, his nickname was not considered degrading or insulting! She stated "people are given nickname descriptives" in the Indian subcontinent. She said she was shocked when she came to the USA and found her book (given to her by her parents & grandparents) was now considered racist. Her nickname was Mamonie (meaning "little one") and I quoted further about their customs and Bengalis folk tales.

So...where does this Amazon review possibly fit in everyone's argument? Could he have been a little black Indian child? However, I do agree with Ellekabong that in the artwork the nappiness of the child's hair may be incongruent with that of an Indian. But..I still "think" the artwork I saw in the book I read as a child was not as inflammatory as that now being presented in the new versions?!

I do remember as a child I struggled with the odd clothes the child wore! Those clothes would be typically "Indian" and not "African"...so if Bannerman meant the child to be "African" then WHY NOT dress him in African clothes?? Or WHY was he NOT referred to as an African living in India??..which she didn't! Therefore, she might have meant him as an Indian! (And/or somehow there was a problem with the artwork on her publishing? or do I recall the very original was "her own artwork"?? Sorry, but I'm getting confused here.)

I guess, what I'm saying here is "if" Bannerman had "intent" to be racist with her children's story, maybe we will never know without her here to explain it. In spite of all this, I DO think those people NOW who by "knowing intent" try to inflame the situation on the "new versions" by the gross mischaracterization of the child's appearance in their artwork...then that is wrong! We wouldn't have to guess at their intent, when they had the option to have done things differently (especially in light of the controversy) if they so chose to do it. It certainly would have been kinder. I, for one, do not want to see anyone hurt over this.

 

ElleKabong -
It's good to know I'm not conversing with a spirit from the future.
:-)

I don't think the use of 'black' to refer to people of Indian descent in Britain was ever 'acceptable', and I don't think Indians themselves ever used the term. It was still widely used when I was a little girl (longer ago than I care to recall), and as far as I know it had been used ever since there were Indians in England, which has been a long time.
As to how the word is viewed in America - I don't see how that is relevant to the book. Bannerman wasn't American, she didn't live in America and she wasn't writing for an American audience. There's no reason to assume that she was writing with American sensibilities in mind, or that 'reviews' written in the following hundred years do anything to alter Bannerman's mindset after the fact.
I really don't think she would have thought too deeply about exact race; for her, 'black' would mean anyone with a dark skin. I don't think it would have been that important to her. And as for "how the illustrations have developed over the past 100+years" - surely that has no bearing at all on the author's original intent?

As to where the book is supposed to be set - Bannerman doesn't actually say 'this story is set in India', but she was herself living in India at the time and since she was writing for her own children, she probably wouldn't feel the need to point out that the story was set in an environment they would be most familiar with. And the presence of tigers in the forest does rather limit the geographical range. Tigers aren't found only in India of course, but I feel that if the story was set elsewhere, it would be natural for her to make some mention of it.

"Sambo IS actually black, certainly now even if not necessarily in 1899"
Now you jumped on me when I suggested that 'people' were finding things to complain about that weren't necessarily in the original book, yet now you seem to be suggesting that the problem is one of modern sensibilities. I think we're actually looking at the same thing, but interpreting it from our own personal experience.

"What’s the simplest explanation for the way the character looks, for his name?"
For you, the 'simplest explanation' is that this is deliberate and blatent racism. For me, the simplest explanation is that Bannerman really didn't worry about it too much. The storyline (as opposed to the names and the illustrations) gives, I think, a wholly positive view of the little boy. (Where you get the idea "maybe craftiness is a better word, since it indicates a more instinctual (i.e., closer to animal, as per standard racist lines of thought), rather than intellectual, type of smarts", I really don't know). Why would Bannerman go to the trouble of writing a positive story of a little boy, and then spoil the message with a deliberately negative name, title and illustrations? The simple answer, to me at least, is that she didn't consider them to be negative.

Whether that still constitutes racism is a different question, of course; such lack of thought *today* would be seen as gross ignorance and insensitivity at best, inforgivable racism at worst.
But then, a lot has happened in the past 106 years.

 

In light of all the confusion about various details surrounding "Little Black Sambo," I decided to do some digging around, try to educate myself. There's lots of stuff out there. First interesting discovery: Bannerman herself was the one who created the original illustrations. Can't remember anyone mentioning that; maybe someone wondered, but wasn't sure? In any case, here's an excerpt from a post from a decade-old discussion of the original story and its various incarnations. The poster was also discussing an out-of-print book called "Little Black Sambo: A Closer Look" by Phyllis Yuill.

>>One of the problems with the book is the ethnocentric way in which Helen Bannerman, a Scottish woman, conflated "other" cultures. The tigers and ghee suggest an Indian setting. Bannerman's original illustrations, on the other hand, show Africans. Sort of. Actually they have white lines around their mouths, so they're really (?) whites in black face, echoing minstrel make-up. The illustrations are also dreadfully stereotyped in other ways: stick figures, stiffly posed; in one the kerchiefed fat Black Mumbo awkwardly reaches a jacket out to her son--i.e., suggesting distance, not intimacy. Yuill juxtaposes this illustration to another by Bannerman, of a white mother and daughter--illusionistic, warmly rounded, the daughter overlapping the mother in a way that evokes intimacy. In short, Bannerman didn't portray the LBS figures the way she did because of lack of artistic skill but was consciously stereotyping them.<<

"Ghee," BTW, is clarified butter, which is apparently what the tigers actually turned into in the original version of the story.

I don't know about the suggestion that the characters were originally presented as whites in blackface; I haven't seen any images of sufficient quality to offer this kind of detail. But I do think this post speaks to my at-bottom point that, conscious or not, conflated or not, the stetreotyping was there, and was powerful. Just because it may have been a default setting doesn't diminish its power, IMHO.

This next mention is from a Web site for a U.K. franchise called the Pancake Parlour. It has a surprising wealth of information about Bannerman as well as images from various international editions of "Little Black Sambo"--perhaps partly out of sympathy for the fact that there used to be a pancake franchise in the U.S. called Sambo's? Note that the thought that Sambo is black is also in effect here. (As this is a contemporary site for what looks like a currently going franchise, I presume they wouldn't be using the more elastic, less-than-acceptable sense of the term "black" mentioned by cleo?)

>>Critics have also observed that Bannerman presents one of the first black heroes in children's literature. Little Black Sambo was initially regarded as a book that positively portrayed black characters, especially in comparison to the more negative books of the time that depicted blacks as simple and uncivilized. As racial consciousness grew in America and Great Britain in the mid-twentieth century, however, Little Black Sambo became an object of harsh criticism and heated debate. Charging that Bannerman presents a patronizing view of blacks, some educators recommended that the book be removed from library shelves; others defended the book as a harmless product of a bygone era.
>>Complicating this issue were the various American. versions of Little Black Sambo that were published in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Since neither Bannerman nor Richards retained the copyright, the story often appeared with illustrations other than the author's own, pictures that are generally considered stereotypical in their portrayal of blacks in jungle or plantation settings. Bannerman's own illustrations, however, also came under fire. Some critic found the caricatures of blacks in Little Black Sambo and Bannerman's other works demeaning. In 1947 a critic asserted that "the original illustrations use all the usual stereotypes found in malicious cartoons of Negroes... the thick lips, the rolling eyes, the bony knees, the fuzzy hair."
>>The names that Bannerman used for her characters also drew reproach. Some critics charged that the names of Sambo's parents, Mumbo and Jumbo, make the characters seem like objects of ridicule.<<

What's considered positive is often measured on a sliding scale. When the negativity is massive and relentless, any lessening thereof can seem downright ambrosial. But improving times, IMHO, change the perception and the expectation of what constitutes--and what pollutes--a positive portrayal.

The URL for the article this was pulled from is http://www.pancakeparlour.com/Wonderland/Highlight...

 

The following is taken from an interesting Web-page entry that was discussing Little Black Sambo in the context of another controversial character called Memin Pinguin. This character, also a visual representation of thick-lipped, goggle-eyed black stereotype, is sufficiently popular in Mexico to have been recently immortalized on postage stamps. The post touches on a dynamic that I think may be informing some of the posts to this thread:

>>For me, I remember reading Little Black Sambo as a child and enjoying it; me, who grew up in a culture of expanding racial sensitivity (and yes, some might say “over-sensitivity”); me, who was one of the few white students at a predominantly black school in the early 1970s; me, whose parents really always tried to emphasize the essential humanity of others and the avoidance of racial or ethnic stereotypes. . . .
>>Today, much like Professor Santiago, I have this sense almost of embarrassment about Sambo: how, indeed, could I have liked and enjoyed something illustrated in such a racially insensitive manner? That awareness leads to many thoughts. Should I repudiate Sambo? Should I deny any knowledge of Sambo? Should I plead the Fifth (”Who is Sambo? I’m sorry, I cannot answer that question on the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me”)? Does this mean that I’m secretly some sort of closet racist - is there a direct linear connection between Little Black Sambo and The Turner Diaries and am I on the downward descent? I don’t think so (and I certainly hope not). I saw what I saw at the time; I knew no more than that the story was entertaining and I was very happy Sambo tricked the tigers. But I also cannot - or should not - pretend that the negatives [don't] exist when I learn of them.<<

I suspect that some people who have fond memories of "Little Black Sambo" may feel that THEY THEMSELVES have had their integrity called into question on some level during the criticism that's been leveled here against the story's trappings. Perhaps they also feel some of the residual "embarrassment" the poster mentioned, which could lead to the protective urge to shield those fond memories from any incoming pollution.

 

During my rooting around, I discovered a lengthy post from 1996 by Julius Lester, the author of the reinterpretation of "Little Black Sambo" called "Sam and the Tigers." He's apparently replying to a number of other posts, some of which were from librarians. He makes some very interesting points, and also posts a couple of excerpts from a biography of Bannerman. Since it includes quite a number of paragraph breaks, I'll just paste the excerpt in below after a double-dashed line, instead of using carets.

P.S.: I hope to have a response to cleo's latest once the Pepto kicks in. So it might be a while.

=
Carol Hurst wrote:

"Most of us know that Helen Bannerman wrote Little Black Sambo unaware of the fact that she was combining Indian and African people and also unaware of the racial put-downs it contained."

Posterity has not been kind to Helen Bannerman. She was an educated woman. She was well aware of what she was doing in placing a black boy in India. She was creating fantasy.

It is ironic that there has been a thread on the list about fantasy and the resistance of children to it, and yet, for so long it has gone unrecognized that "Little Black Sambo" is fantasy, set neither in Africa or India. Let me quote a couple of passages from Elizabeth Hay's now out-of-print biography, "Sambo Sahib: The Story of Little Black Sambo and Helen Bannerman", (Barnes & Noble, 1981).

The first is from a review which appeared in The Spectator on 12/2/1899, the time of the original publication of LBS. The review indicates that at the time of publication the book was perceived as fantasy, a perception that was lost fairly quickly:

[The book] "was not written with one eye on parents and guardians, or the inconsistency of mixing up the African type of black with delightful adventures with tigers in an Indian jungle would never have been allowed to pass. As it is, Little Black Sambo makes his simple and direct appeal in the great realm of make-believe without paying the slightest attention to the unities or caring in the least about anything but the amusement of the little boys and girls for whom he was so obviously created." (p. 28)

The second quote is in the words of the biographer:

"The geographical inconsistencies of Helen's books...have been widely criticized....Helen's letters make it clear that far from being so ignorant as to confuse an African with an Indian she was able to distinguish between the racial groups within India.

"Why then did a person who was both well travelled and scholarly write a book which contains aspects of both Africa and India? The explanation is that she was writing, not for publication, but for her own daughters. She wanted to set her story somewhere far away and exotic; she chose an imaginary jungle-land and people it with what were to her daughters a far-away kind of people. To have made the setting India would have been too humdrum and familiar for them. Then, because she had a liking for terrifying tigers, she brought them in as the villains. She was far too good a naturalist not to be aware that tigers are found in India but not in Africa; no matter. Her jungle-land was an imaginary one, and tigers, which for her were symbolic dragons, were essential to the story." (p. 28-9)

 

cleo: >>I don't think the use of 'black' to refer to people of Indian descent in Britain was ever 'acceptable', and I don't think Indians themselves ever used the term. It was still widely used when I was a little girl (longer ago than I care to recall), and as far as I know it had been used ever since there were Indians in England, which has been a long time.<<
Interesting. And would you classify that usage as racist? I ask partly because you've mentioned both common usage ("commonly referred to") and unacceptability ("don't think the use . . . was ever 'acceptable'") in your two descriptions of the use of the term "black" in England to refer to Indians and Pakistanis. It would have seemed to me that mentioning the ubiquity should have automatically triggered a mention of the inappropriateness to qualify the use of the name itself, especially in the context of this discussion. The gap between the two mentions, I think, makes it seem as though a slur's ubiquity in some way excuses it or diminishes its impact as a slur. If that IS something you believe, as opposed to something that was mistakenly implied--and for the record, I suspect the latter--then that would explain any confusion as to why people would be upset about the use of the word/name "Sambo."

cleo: >>As to how the word is viewed in America - I don't see how that is relevant to the book.<<
Why suddenly so selective? It's been asked more than once on this thread what the offense was anyway, whether this version of the book differs from versions in the U.S., etc. IMHO, in the context of this discussion, and after your own professions of confusion as to why "we" needed to be so upset about these portrayals, to suddenly say that how the word is viewed in America is irrelevant is disingenuous at best. The U.S. is, after all, the place where a whole lot of us Easily Offended black folks live, and it's also a place where "Little Black Sambo" never went out of print.

I think there's also been some attempt to ghettoize (NPI) the concept of offense at the Sambo name and the gollowog imagery as an American problem. But these racist depictions are no more the exclusive province of America than anti-semitism is the exclusive province of Germany. These words and images were short-hand communications wherever they were used. How one felt about them would largely depend on your age, your environment, and what end of the spear you and yours lived on--the handle end, or he business end.

cleo: >>Bannerman wasn't American, she didn't live in America and she wasn't writing for an American audience. There's no reason to assume that she was writing with American sensibilities in mind, or that 'reviews' written in the following hundred years do anything to alter Bannerman's mindset after the fact.<<
Nor have I asserted any of those things. In fact, I HAVE said, more than once I think, that the book was a product of her time. HOWEVER, I have ALSO said that these icons and names were NOT the exclusive province of Americans, or of OUR time. (I didn't make up the negative meanings of "Sambo"; that's old stuff. It's just that society in general has evolved to the point where I and others can get up on our hind legs and express our upset with such a term without, say, risking our lives.) This currency was good anywhere in the Western world--or anywhere Westerners had made themselves at home--and has been for hundreds of years.

Also, when something is republished in a different context, it is inevitably interpreted within that context. And in our discussion as to where potential offense lies in this book, in this specific edition and others, it is ENTIRELY appropriate to discuss how the story and its intimate accouterments are perceived and discussed by people who are actually paid to discuss such matters.

I don't think anyone would deny that this is a potentially controversial book. (The questions seem to start turning on the issue of the nature of the controversy, and whether it's justified.) When discussing this story in its various incarnations, there has been an evident understanding among reviewers that stands in contradiction to your determined uncertainty about the ethnicity of the main character. They refer to him as black and/or African. Matter of fact, you yourself were referring to this edition's Sambo as "a little Black boy, looking like a little Black boy" not too long ago, but perhaps that portion of the griddle has gotten too hot to stand on.

cleo: >>I really don't think she would have thought too deeply about exact race; for her, 'black' would mean anyone with a dark skin.<<
That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. As far as I'm concerned, for her, "black" COULD have meant anyone with a dark skin, but that doesn't change the fact that she used some racially specific tropes on the one hand, and some contradictory geographic and zoological ones on the other. (As Lester said, I think this was because she was simply creating a fantasy.) What matters far more to me at this point is what freight the original book carried, and what it very quickly BECAME. The names and images ALREADY had negative weight when she used them in her story, whether or not she perceived them as such or manipulated them consciously. Since then, it has thankfully become less acceptable to use such ethnic slurs, so when their use does crop up this relentlessly, whether it was hatched in a nest of casual/accepted use or not, it remains hurtful, most especially for people who were--or can still be--forced to wear those labels. When you're always on the business end of a stick, you're going to have a very different idea about the nature and purpose of that stick than someone who has more of a choice about where they live in relation to that stick--much less someone who doesn't even know the stick exists at all, or who prefers to remain agnostic regarding its existence.

cleo: >>I don't think it would have been that important to her. And as for "how the illustrations have developed over the past 100+ years" - surely that has no bearing at all on the author's original intent?<<
Not necessarily. The development of the story and its incarnations seems to have followed along the path started by the creator. I think there have been various attempts to steer the book off to one side or the other, but when it comes to this most recent edition, the road, it seems to me, is remarkably straight--and it runs through some unsavory territory. Some of that unsavoriness was probably born in the colonial time of the story and its attendant prejudices and unconsciousnesses; some of it can undoubtedly be traced to the change in general perception when it comes to the appropriateness of the names and images she initially used, and that others have continued to use in spirit if not in specifics. (Since she didn't retain copyright for the story, it's often re-published without her original drawings, although there is at least one edition in print in the U.S. that does feature them.)

IMHO, the fact that various posters here have such positive memories of the story tells me nothing so much as how easily racist icons can clip in unnoticed be when tucked into the Trojan Horse of an engaging story. The negativity (conscious or unconscious) in the representations of the characters--and illustrations I've seen of Sambo's mother Black Mumba (or sometimes Mumbo) have been DEAD RINGERS for the stereotypical black Mammy, right down to the kerchief--is the kind of things that you often don't recognize if you don't HAVE to. Unless a child has already had a slur directed at them or heard it directed at another--or, presumably, had its dangers explained to them--they wouldn't have reason to recognize it as such. Nonetheless, I think the images and the names do acquire a root in the young mind when accompanied by a storyline like this one, most likely growing happily in a benign direction . . . until their pedigree is presented, which I'd imagine could cause some messy and painful pruning or uprooting.

Such language and images can travel everywhere, and unless the whistle gets blown, the dandelions just keep growing and spreading. When I was young, for instance, kids in my neighborhood would say things like "don't be an Indian giver" or "that's such a gyp" without having a clue about the racist genesis/content of the phrases. That's where education has to come into the picture.

cleo: >>As to where the book is supposed to be set - Bannerman doesn't actually say 'this story is set in India', but she was herself living in India at the time and since she was writing for her own children, she probably wouldn't feel the need to point out that the story was set in an environment they would be most familiar with. And the presence of tigers in the forest does rather limit the geographical range. Tigers aren't found only in India of course, but I feel that if the story was set elsewhere, it would be natural for her to make some mention of it.<<
Again, I think that question also very easily bends in other, clearly less-comfortable directions. I also think that Lester's point regarding her constructing a fantasy is well-taken. But regardless of what she did or didn't specify in the text of her story, she DID specify many other things subtextually in the names she chose and the illustrations she created.

cleo: >>Now you jumped on me when I suggested that 'people' were finding things to complain about that weren't necessarily in the original book,<<
Excuse me? Show me where that happened, please. Looks to me like you're revising your statement AND mine. What I called you on was this statement: "I still don't understand why African Americans need to get so het up about this book." Given the context of that part of the discussion, it seems to me that we were talking NOT about the ORIGINAL 1899 book, but about the NEW Japanese edition of the story. If YOU had been talking about the original and not the new version, why would you have waited for four days to correct my supposed misapprehension?

cleo: >>yet now you seem to be suggesting that the problem is one of modern sensibilities.<<
I don't think I'm the one who's shifted ground here.

cleo: >>I think we're actually looking at the same thing, but interpreting it from our own personal experience.<<
>>"What’s the simplest explanation for the way the character looks, for his name?
cleo: >>For you, the 'simplest explanation' is that this is deliberate and blatent racism.<<
And where did I say that? Honestly, can you show me where? What I DID say, until I was purple in the fingers, is that the NAME and the IMAGES are HURTFUL LEGACIES of all-day-every-day RACISM--not JUST in the U.S., but all OVER the place. She was a white woman in a colonial INDIA. What would been her incentive to avoid a racial slur that she probably saw as a simple descriptive? Even if she hadn't seen it that way, the opprobrium attached to the use of such words was virtually non-existent in those days. There really isn't any getting around the fact that some very ugly words were part of the normal day-to-day lexicon in those days; racism (along with many other forms of discrimination) was more a part of the foregrounded social default back then. Therefore, unless she was an unusually aware individual when it came to forms of discrimination that were woven into the society in which she lived, she would in all likelihood have been using those names and images WITHOUT the deliberate malice that would be pretty much required for their use today. (After all, how many caring mothers today would teach their daughters to use terms like "darky" or "peckerwood?) Nonetheless, the impact of those names and images remains real; we're ALL supposed to know better today. Aren't we?

cleo: >>For me, the simplest explanation is that Bannerman really didn't worry about it too much. The storyline (as opposed to the names and the illustrations) gives, I think, a wholly positive view of the little boy.<<
While I'm not sure that I agree with your first point, I wouldn't contest the second--in light of your caveat regarding the names and the illustrations, which were the loci of offense that I pointed out in the FIRST place.

cleo: >>(Where you get the idea "maybe craftiness is a better word, since it indicates a more instinctual (i.e., closer to animal, as per standard racist lines of thought), rather than intellectual, type of smarts", I really don't know).<<
Which is interesting to me, since I've just explained that simple point to tetsukon. What is it about the word "SPECULATION" that you don't understand?

cleo: >>Why would Bannerman go to the trouble of writing a positive story of a little boy, and then spoil the message with a deliberately negative name, title and illustrations? The simple answer, to me at least, is that she didn't consider them to be negative.<<
And did I ever, anywhere, argue that she in fact DID? Let me spare you the back-scrolling and the forehead wrinkles and tell you that no, I never did. Rasicm can be overt OR covert, a virulent explosion of anger or a subtle, ubiquitous weave through a society's fabric.

cleo: >>Whether that still constitutes racism is a different question, of course; such lack of thought *today* would be seen as gross ignorance and insensitivity at best, inforgivable racism at worst.<<
And since THIS is ostensibly a thread about a version of that book that has JUST BEEN PUBLISHED in Japan this spring . . . ? We were--or at least *I* was--talking about a version of the story that used both the insulting names and the insulting character designs that hark back to Bannerman's original.

So now I wonder. Now that you seem to agree with my assertions regarding the names and images, how should the presence of the FRUIT of this "lack of thought" you mentioned be seen today? What should we make of the publisher's deliberate re-use of the thick-lipped, goggle-eyed racist icon and the animal-oriented descriptive words (as per aiueo's explanation) augmenting the presence of the "Sambo" name in a 2005 edition of a children's story? (Granted, "Sambo" is very unlikely to mean the same thing to a Japanese reader that it would to a Western one; however, I think the use of chibi and kuro make up for that.) I have always been less interested in debating the fine details of Bannerman's century-old creative process than I've been in discussing contemporary responses to a contemporary version of this old story that possesses what for many of us are the very difficult and inappropriate kinds of elements that the original also sported.

cleo: >>But then, a lot has happened in the past 106 years.<<
And unfortunately, there appears to be a lot that HASN'T happened. The following is taken from a Guardian article on the above-mentioned Japanese version of "Little Black Sambo." (The URL is http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1506576,00.html.) This article also put the sales numbers of the 2005 edition into proper context: "About 100,000 copies of the 30-page book have been sold in the past two months and it has made it into the top five on the adult fiction bestsellers' lists at big bookshops in the capital." Interesting that it's selling so well as ADULT fiction, but anyway:

>>The publisher brushed aside claims that it was cashing in on a work that many consider racist, with its depictions of Sambo - a derogatory word for black people - with bulging eyes and exaggerated lips. [. . .]
>>"Times have changed since the book was removed," Zuiunsha's president, Tomio Inoue, told the Guardian. "Black people are more prominent in politics and entertainment, so I don't think this book can be blamed for supporting racial stereotypes. We certainly had no intention of insulting black people. [. . .]
>>Meanwhile, the Japanese cosmetics maker Mandom said yesterday it had stopped showing a TV commercial after complaints that it was racist. In the advert, for face blotting paper, several black people wipe the sweat from their brows while a chimpanzee wearing an afro wig imitates them.<<

Nice, eh? And this was an ad that got through all the layers of approval that stand between an idea and a finished commercial. (I've done PR work, and I know how many hoops an ad idea has to get through before seeing the televised light of day; a LOT of people had to think this was a good idea.) Anyone want to try defending that one? Probably no more than anyone wanted to address the point I made way back when about the stereotyped golliwog caritacure's strong resemblance to the depictions of black characters in Japanese popular culture.

So. The publishers of Chibikuro Sambo "had no intention of insulting black people." What will they do if they learn that black people ARE insulted? Anything besides reassert their good intentions and continue to make money hand over fist? Doubt it. As I suspect is the case elsewhere, intent apparently trumps impact; if they didn't INTEND to offend, why should they have to make any changes? After all, it would take quite an outcry for them to relinquish such a lucrative product, and where would the necessary volume of protest come from? There's a paragraph in the article that seems to address this question:

>>Few protests have been voiced in Japan, which has a very small black community, although an online campaign against the book attracted messages from a few people, mainly Americans. "We have replied to all of them in English explaining our position and have heard nothing back, so I think they understand," Mr Inoue said.<<

I would dearly love to find that site, and to write to the publishers; I'm very curious as to what their reply has been, and how open they've actually been to return responses. (Taking silence for consent is always an interesting tactic.) I also wonder if anyone has asked them about the additional negative nuances of the Japanese title.

 

After some reflection, I think I'm going to take my leave of this thread.

When I enter into a discussion, I don't write casually or off the cuff; I try very hard to be careful, to be civil, to back up my assertions with examples, and to avoid making unfounded accusations or mischaracterizing other people's statements. I'm tired of batting things around without being shown the same courtesy. Having to waste entirely too much of my time and energy reminding people of what I ACTUALLY said is extremely disheartening; it's not something I expected to need to do in a group of literate adults, and there are any number of far more profitable ways for me to spend my time. I could try herding cats, for instance. : )

Honestly, though--I enjoy savoring the irony as much as the next gal, but this has become a bit ridiculous.

Have fun, everyone.

 

ElleKabong, I think we ALL owe you an expression of gratitude! You provided us with such indepth analysis and material! Thanks. It was much needed in lieu of the critical personalization on opposing opinions that was characterizing these posts upon your arrival. Personally, I know it helped me (and I know others) to have a better understanding of the issues you brought forth surrounding this book. You really put a lot of time and effort into providing this! I'm sure it must not have been easy for you. Please know it IS appreciated! Thank you!!!!

 

Just WHAT exactly did you learn from reading the posts so very carefully written by Elle? What exactly can you tell me is so inappropriate about the book and its continued reverence by many?

Can YOU explain just why it is that Blacks should be so incensed about its existence?

...Or are you just writing a very PC "thank you" to give the impression that you care, when in fact its not true.

Please, as a favor to a genuinely cynical Black man that is so very tired of the hyprocrisy of the "melting pot" he was born and raised in... Please prove that in this case my cynicism is misplaced.

 

Kuroyama, please know that I do NOT give out empty or dishonest "thank you's"! I have always been known to be too honest to a fault. Those that know me..can agree that I always speak the truth as I know it, try to do so with respect, will readily admit when I am wrong (certainly have NO ego there), am willing to listen to others, open to learn, and will hold no malice if someone disagrees. However, I do expect the same in return! Further, I like to believe the "best" in people and hope they also give me the same courtesy.

I honestly believed and appreciated all the effort and time Elle did put into her research; and I thought she should be recognized for it..and from ALL of us! All of the information she provided was done was with passion for "her" point of view. I could easily see that and I respect that!! She also provided it in such a way, that the "readers" could decide if "they" agreed with her findings or not. I found that it certainly "balanced" my views and provided me more indepth historical data to gleen from and consider. I always welcome knowledge, aside from what I have been accused of earlier..aahmmm! (ha) In fact, I sought to do some research of my own (Amazon, Globe, encyclopedia, etc.), but certainly not to the extent Elle did! I believe her research was not only extensive, but rather factual (meaning, I do not think she made anything up or lied). The bottom line for all who read her postings, is that they then can "agree" or "not agree"..which is their perrogative and option. That is all any of us can hope for whether it was what I wrote, you wrote, Elle or others..and this is the purpose of this "discussion" forum. For the most part, I welcomed her opinions and her insight into how the black people could feel..without the reader being unjustly attacked. When you asked about my opinions, I think I expressed most of them in my last two postings.

Further, it was not an easy thing for Elle to have even typed what she did. Gesh, just the typing alone was great. I can't seem to say or type fast enough before my time runs out...and then I have to copy what I wrote and type it all over again..and forget "corrections"!..they seem to chop up my flow. Elle did a great job and I DO appreciate it!

Kuroyama, one thing I DID learn (and I am very honest about this) is that I deeply feel for your concerns over this book! I truly meant what I've said in that I do NOT wish anyone to be hurt or feel pain by "any" publishings that may prove to be divisive!! But I am sorry I cannot go so far as to say we should lose our "freedom" to chose! Why? Because we all may never agree on what is good and what is bad (just as demonstrated here); and "freedom" is more precious!

However, I NOW think (thanks to these postings) that these publishers were very WRONG to have corrupted the name and artwork! Perhaps by doing so, they should have just left my beloved book to remain in the past. (As an innocent child I loved the story. It is soooo sad mankind can elect to use it..or any book..to a wrong end and tarnish my memory of the "story" of a brave little boy. AS a child reading this book, I honestly did NOT see "color..politics..or prejudice" and I'll stand on that! I can only say it was because of the religious belief of my mother or how I was raised.)

Although, we may never know the "intent" of Bannerman in writing what she wrote for her children, I really do believe the publishers NOW should carefully consider all consequences and be responsible for their own "intent"!! There is too much prejudice and bigotry in this world already, so WHY (sadly to say) introduce anything that will cause society to lose the ground they gained in this arena? In the eyes of God we are ALL equal and no man or woman or race or religion or difference should purposely be put down!

In closing, thank you for your comments and I hope you can find peace with this issue, inspite of your hurt over it. I know it is "another" difficult task for you and your fellow Black Americans to face. Forgive me, if I was misunderstood or whatever, to have added to your grief over this. I pray all mankind can "forgive" (yes!!) and keep trying to make things better!! Peace..Shalom!

 

Thank you everyone for your time and thoughts put into this forum. I guess, I sort of stumbled on it and soon found out it was "more" than I had expected. That's okay, though. It was a good learning experience for me; and I can humbly say I did learn from the varied point of views. However, I'm behind in some of my work and people who need help. PLEASE let us be kind...to others and to ourselves. Those are my parting words! (ha) God bless you ALL.

 

a child's fable on courage and self-reliance No wonder organized religion's scriptures spawn so much hatred, death and murder.

 

I just happen to still be on my computer after my "good-bye" when I recived Japan Today notice of a reply to my post. I'm not sure exactly what you are fully saying by what you said...and perhaps you were not even writing to me??

But...in case you were writing to me and/or "only" because you noted "organized" religion and I have referred to my faith, is why I will make one last comment. When I shared my faith in my postings, I can summarize how I believe as follows: I am a Christian, but to me it is only in the sense that "Christianity is NOT a religion...but a relationship!" I have a loving, personal relationship with my creator and God. Yes, I agree that man-made "organized" religions can be just as guilty of certain historical injustices. What I take to heart are the teachings.."do unto others, as you would want them to do unto you" and to "love your neighbor, as yourself." I AGREE with you, that the story was about "courage and self-reliance"!! Yes, and I am sure that is why I loved the story so much.."as an (innocent) child" and especially because of the hardships I had to endure "as a child", which I wrote about..I only just saw a brave little boy.

 

ElleKabong put in a lot of work and effort trying to defend her people, from images of hate.

I know one thing, it wouldn't take all of that argument ElleKabong had to post, in order to convince a reasonable person like me to stop and respect a person feelings.

If a certain race dosen't like something, don't do it, respect there culture and feelings.

I know Japanese people don't like chop sticks stuck straight down in a bowel of rice while eating at the table, they told me that it was rude table manners, and that you only do that when someone dies.

I didn't know that, but me being an American, why should I care?

I stop doing it, because I don't want to disrepect a persons culture, also the samething about taking off shoes in the house.

Americans wear shoes in the house Japanese don't, should I respect there culture, yes, because wearing shoes in the house is disrepectful for them.

I don't need a ten page argument as to why I shouldn't stick my chop sticks straight down in a bowel of rice, or a history lesson in taking off shoes in a Japanese house.

Just respect other people feelings, it's just that simple, and less people will be angery.

Common sense?

Truth

 

Respecting culture, society, and feelings is not the same thing as debating ideas. There is no correct or incorrect and no right or wrong in cultures and societies. Each is what it is, and you cannot judge any culture or society by the standards of another or by external, objective standards. Hence, even if it doesn't make sense from a non-Japanese point of view, we don't stick chopsticks in rice, just as other cultures have different table manners from Japan.

But one cannot say that abouit ideas. It is possible to respect ideas and the person who espouses them while at the same time rejecting them because they are not rational or persuasive ideas. Mind you, I'm not saying that Ellekabong's ideas should be rejected--I never read them. My point is that, contrary to your post, one does not accept the validity of ideas because of a desire to show respect, which is what I think you are saying.