Nov 9, 2011
Print This Post
The Vatican is defending the storybook character Tintin against what it called “politically correct lunacy” after British stores pulled the book over concerns that it was racist.
“Tintin in the Congo” details the adventures of a young Belgian reporter who is described by the Vatican’s official newspaper as a “Catholic hero.” Steven Spielberg’s adaption of the character, “The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn,” is due to open in American theatres in December.
L’Osservatore Romano published a front page story defending Tintin as “a hero of Catholicism” who was driven by a “sacred moral imperative – to save the innocent and conquer evil.”
But critics of the 1930’s children’s comic, said the book portrays Congolese people as infantile and stupid.
Some publishers have banned the book, while others have actually put warning labels on the cover.
The Vatican newspaper editorialized on the literary scuffle – arguing that the book should be taken in historical context.
“Tintin is a hero of Catholicism, imbued with the ideal of the scouts,” the editorial writers opined. “Tintin is a Western knight of modern times, an unstained heart in an invulnerable body. Tintin is now all alone in initiating children into the values of chivalry.”
In some instances, the book was moved to the adult section of bookstores.
The British Commission for Racial Equality told The Telegraph that the book “depicted hideous racial prejudice.”
“It’s political correctness gone mad,” said Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education in an interview with The Telegraph. “All these silly attempts at censorship do not do a lot of good.”
Tintin titles have sold more than 350 million copies in 80 different languages.
FOX News Talk
Let's see, this was first written in 1930…No wonder they want to ban this book. Heaven forbid children learn there were such things as racial inequality! But it's not surprising; they want to ban Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, too!
This isn't a thoughtful look back at the danger of racial prejudice- it a book that actual promotes racist images and depictions. Completely different than Mark Twains works which where and effective criticism and of racism and teaching of tolerance.
It sad that the politically correct try to erase history that they find inconvenient or offensive. Tintin was written in the 1930s, when sensibilities were different.
?? what? that doens't make it any less racist- Who care when it was made- it has offensive connotations and depicts black face.
Tony Lamar Ivey spoken like a true racist. dont like it ,dont read it. you need to quit the race game n git a life.
Perhaps Tony thinks that it should be banned? A little book burning warms the Leftist heart.
I am very divided about the book, which I read when I was young. It is very funny and very well drawn but describes the locals of the then-Belgian Congo as "extremely immature," to say the least. Would it be a book for grown ups, I would have no objections against its publication. Since it appeals to grade school kids, it should come with some equally graphic explanation of the social context of the book.
Interestingly enough, the same author published a few years later a Tintin book about China ("The Blue Lotus") that denounced in unambiguous terms the Japanese invasion of China and the behavior of some western foreigners. In one of the cartoons, Tintin's Chinese friend Chiang (?) even addresses the anti-Chinese prejudices of many Europeans of that time.
@Mickey Berry Do you even know what 'racist' means. It's the belief that ones' own racist in innately superior to another race (basically). What about my comment made, me seem racist? I'm honestly embarrassed for you.
@Darrell Long -The work is clearly no longer appropriate as it promotes the long-held lie that Africans were sub-human,creates devoid of any culture, 'civility' or intellect- and Europeans were somehow the superior race on the planet cursed with the burden to civilize and train the barbarians of the "Dark continent" It's just as offensive and inappropriate as a swastika. Where in the world did you get that i support book burning or the left ( and since when are those two connected in any historical or political sense?)
Tony: I am glad to see that your grammar has improved since the first posting. I was beginning to worry about Howard University's standards.
It would be rude for a person to write such a book today, I must admit, but it was written in a different time. You cannot erase history, Stalin tried and it failed even then. The Left is very fond of trying to erase history, damnatio memoriae was practiced in all communist regimes.
Freedom of speech means that you may be uncomfortable. And frankly, that's too damn bad. We all get to see a lot of things that offend us, and we do not have a constitutional right not to be offended. Instead, we need to have the intelligence to condemn, educate, and persuade without calling for the banning of a book or of free speech.
Trying to rewrite history again, I wonder if race will ever be settled.
Let's leave books alone, don't like it don't read it.
Oh well there goes all of history….If we started deleting books, photos etc becasue they might be considered offensive today then we would not have anything to teach in History. These idiots fail to realize that by completely earsing things like this (That were made when racial tensions were high) we are earsing lessons that we can learn from it. History is painted with offensive things….same in this time period. Something could offend me right now and if it was up to them they would just have it earsed.
It's offensive that consumers cannot be left with the choice of whether or not to read/purchase a book. I am sick of being treated as though I'm infantile and stupid.
The liberal politically correct mob would prefer to portray such persons in more complimentary form, while quietly subverting their culture through eugenics based population programs run by Marie Stopes, Planned Parenthood and the UNPF. Hypocrites.
Am I the only sane person here- look at the cover. The African is a 'sambo'- I've seen illustrations from this book and they all show offensive black-face incarnations of Africans. How is that acceptable?
In 2011, black-face is not acceptable, plain and simple but when this book was written (1930), it was very acceptable. There were even movies that depicted black-face that were completely acceptable at the time. That's the whole point. Let the reader decide. Don't try to rewrite history just because it's not politically correct.
Angel PinaHardin No one is re-writing history. Yes offensive images existed, but that doesn't mean we keep showing them ( especially in a childrens book!!) There a Looney Toons cartooned with offensive material to blacks and jews, that is banned for the same reason- it perpetrates the bigoted sentiments of the past. Should ads still run that use words like "japs" or "injun"? NO- while it represents a historical attitude, it's no longer acceptable in a non-historical public context.
Tell me something Tony…are you a Sambo…?
Tony Lamar Ivey , racists will allways find something to btch about. the cover is not racist. its from an older time.meybe we should re-paint all the great works of art to. im sure you think they are racist.lol
Tony Lamar Ivey , when blacks quit using the N word to extreme, then we mite be able to start a conversation. till then all you want is to make everything a racial issue.
Mickey Berry While the N-world is extremely irrelevant to this- why do people act as though ignorant rappers speak for the entire Black community. The Urban Rights League and NAACP both denounce that word as it has no place in correct or polite modern speech. ANYONE that uses it is ignorant and should be educated.
@Mickey Berry– I'm not sure what your intent is in unjustly calling be a racist, but i would advise you to educate yourself on the black-face and other offensive depictions of racism from the 18 and 19 centuries. BTW "The cover is not racist , it's from an older time" I don't understand how the passage of time makes it not racist. It was from a racist time, yes, and it was and still is very offensive. It was from a time where it was largely believed black where sub-human- why would you want to continue to promote that belief?
I was brought up reading these books, they Are NOT racist and they did not turn me into a racist. The fact that they want to ban these is 100% down to our Tree hugging, youghurt knitting, bedwetting, pansy ass Liberal do gooder brigade, who can' find anything better to bi**ch about! MORONS!
Forgive me for asking, but why is the Vatican involving itself in this discussion? Don't they have more important things to be doing than commenting on an eighty year old book?
An eighty year old book… for children, made of cartoons.
I mean, really? Let booksellers and book buyers do what they're going to do. This isn't the Bible, after all…
When I was younger, I used to watch these cartoons "Tin Tin in Outer Space" Tin Tin's this or that. I was brought up in a household of accountability, responsibility, truth and honor and I was taught to judge people not buy the color of there skin but buy the motivations of their heart. The politically correct mob has gone way way over the line on this one…freedom of speech..but I must remind myself that this is the nation that banned Michael Savage for simply telling it like it is. Loser's, Churchill is rolling in his grave right about now, his country is the dust of a cultured civilization long past.