Let's talk about Little Black Sambo

[conuly]

I know, you're wondering why on earth I want to talk about that and what purpose it could possibly serve, but I promise I have a point. Plus? You get to snark on rude little Amazon commenters, and that's always fun.

Now, for those of you who have heard the name, and maybe seen a picture of one of the illustrations, but have never read it (that was me until recently) you can go read it now. There are no illustrations attached, but that's probably just as well.

All done? Well, here's the thing. I read that and - the offensive names (and illustrations_ notwithstanding, it's actually kinda a cute story. (Of course, I'm not black, so take that for what it's worth. Interestingly, I've read that in the author's dialect of the time Black Ssmbo would've been understood to be Indian, which explains the tigers and the ghee.) I mean, the kid is bullied by tigers, but... I'd give all my stuff to tigers too if it worked.

But it's been tied down with offensive names and ugly (and offensive) illustrations and so much racist baggage that people who have never been within 20 feet of the book recognize it as "offensive racist stuff". And there's really only so much "judge within the time period it was written" you can really do before you decide not to buy a book for your kids.

Funnily enough, its reputation as being racist might have saved it. Why? Because people who liked the story (but not the implications) have taken the trouble to rewrite it. I know of two versions that appear to be simple swaps where they updated the illustrations and changed the names, and one version, Sam and the Tigers, that's totally altered and expanded. Oh, and one version where, judging from the cover (haven't read it) the protagonist is white. We avoid racism, folks, by eliminating race altogether!

I really like Sam and the Tigers. There's a lot of new detail - apparently everybody in Sam's town is named Sam, which leads to a few amusing conversations, and we get to hear his parents talk about how he's a big kid and can pick out his own clothes, and the pancakes are striped just like the tigers at the end. And it includes a forward by the illustrator saying that as a kid, he never saw the racism in the book (and that he didn't think it was intended by the author, though it's sure there now), it was simply the only book he had ever seen that showed a kid who looked like him. (And that's a sad thing to think, isn't it? The situation is better now, though white people (hi!) are still overrepresented in picture books.)

So far so good. People update old stories all the time. They've been doing it about as long as people have been telling stories, which may even predate language itself for all I know! If you search Amazon for "Cinderella" you'll find various traditional versions, and versions of similar stories from other cultures, and a lot of modern versions - Cinderella as a cowgirl! Cinderella with the genders swapped! Cinderella in a city! Cinderella as a fractured fairy tale! Cinderella where she does everything herself! And no complaints there. Why should there be?

But here... oh, geez.

For the original version of Little Black Sambo there are comments that it's SO not racist and how could ANYbody EVER think that unless they were TAUGHT to see racism EVERYWHERE? (Captain, I feel that they feel a little defensive.)

Apparently, "whatever is considered "bad" in this book is the manufacture of over-sensitive adults" and "EVERYONE has had an unflattering portrayal at sometime". Ye gods. Can you guys, like, NOT insult everybody who has a view of this book opposing your own? If somebody is offended, try to figure out why before you snipe at them. That's not being PC, that's being polite.

But it gets worse when we go to the reviews of the other books. Let's see....

Sam and the Tigers

I thought I would gag. This takes the cake! It is appalling to me, a student of literature, that we must deny people the right to read a story that yes, was racist. But it was of its time and it is a truly charming story.

Because only the original can be a truly charming story. And nobody, ever, has been denied the right to read the original. It's in the gosh-darned public domain! Google it!

My grandmother read the original book to me a decade and a half ago, when I was 5. I loved it and didn't have the slightest inclination that it was unacceptable. Some wide-eyed psychologist, however, thought so, which is why it's been banned.

Yes, of course. People never come to their own conclusions, it's all the fault of that conspiracy of wide-eyed psychologists. Uh-huh. (The US, to my knowledge, does not ban books either. It's not in print, which is a far different thing.)

Recently, I bought this book for my three year old daughter. After reading it once I was very disappointed and vowed to send it back. The story is great and the illustrations are wonderful. Unfortunately, the book is full of bad grammar. The author states that he wanted to preserve the way stories were told in the Old South. There is never a good reason to perpetuate bad grammar especially in children's books.

Irrelevant, but I had to put it down. You know why I don't like this comment.

The Story of Little Babaji

Political correctness has gone completely mad in this world, and this is a great example. This is the politcally correct version of the wonderful children's book, "Little Black Sambo". I am dismayed that there are people who feel that books should be changed when they offend. If a book offends you, you don't rewrite it to suit your views, you just don't read it or share it with your children. There are so many books in this world which can cause offense. Are we going to rewrite them all?

Why *not* rewrite them all? Why *not* have more choices, more variety, more voices instead of less and less of everything? Ye GODS man! (This is the version where the ONLY thing they did is change the names and illustrations, incidentally. The original book went through, what, 20 different sets of pictures?)

So yes, this was all an excuse to mostly snark at people who apparently have never heard of the concept of "privilege". A weird thing, but that's the only explanation for that last review I can think of.

Comments

[dreams-cametrue.livejournal.com]

What's the difference between removing the racism from a book written by someone for whom that was the norm for his place and time, and removing the misogyny and "ghetto-ness" (for lack of a better term) from rap music performed by someone for whom that attitude was the norm for HIS place and time? I might find both offensive but I don't think it's wise to censor either form of expression.

[conuly]

In the foreward to Sam and the Tigers, the author and illustrator state that they looked through over 50 versions of Little Black Sambo when doing research for their own book. Clearly, having differing versions of a story, with different illustrations (and possibly different text) was the norm for Bannerman's time, and so the "just swap out the names" versions aren't really censorship, are they? (If they are, which version, exactly, are they censoring?)

And the "whole new story based on the old one" mode... I don't think that's censorship either - no more than I think it's censorship when I read one book which sets Cinderella as a Chinese girl and another which puts her as a (male) cowboy and a third which tells the story of CinderEdna who worked for all her "luck". It's just different storytellers telling stories through different lenses. Spin the kaleidoscope again and something else new will come up, but it's still the same object, right?

Even if I did object to this in principle (which I don't), I'm still not sure I'd call it censorship. The racism in Little Black Sambo was, I believe, accidental. I really doubt that Bannerman meant to put it there, and the story stands just fine without it. The misogyny in certain songs can hardly be said to be an accident (although the artist in question might not be thinking too deeply about it), and the song would be very changed by removing it - it's hardly a superficial difference.

Of course, if one artist released two different versions of the same song, one schools and one for grown-ups... that's not censorship either. People do that all the time - they have the original version, and the version that's on THIS CD, and the version that's on THAT CD, and the longer version, and (if they get that far) a couple hundred parody versions all over YouTube. So long as we're able to find, should we want, every version (even the offensive versions), and aren't denied that they exist, I don't see it as censorship even in the broad definition (which includes censorship by non-governmental bodies).

And you *can* buy copies of "the original" (whichever version that is) Little Black Sambo. You can even download them online, cuz it's open source by now. It's not just freely available, it's actually free, which is about as non-censored as you can get.

[conuly]

Edit my previous comment - gosh, I have to start reading WHOLE threads before I reply!

In this case, you're talking about Dr. Doolittle. Frankly, I think a version that's the same as the original except that one detail is a heck of a lot less "censoring" than that god-awful movie they made. Yech.

The same argument about the availability of the original version still applies, though - I can easily buy an older copy of the book, for pennies. Nobody is taking them from my hands or preventing me from locating and finding this book, there are no laws keeping me from reading whatever version I like. Furthermore, the change was superficial and mild, from this description, a tiny detail - one that's easily overlooked by the less attentive reader. No doubt books change more than that in translation from one language to another - and that's almost what this is, a translation from one time period to another.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

"a translation from one time period to another"

Oh, I like that!


"The racism in Little Black Sambo was, I believe, accidental."

I think so too, which is why I was so happy that it was changed.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

That's an exceedingly good question. As far as the "ghetto-ness" of rap music, I don't think we, as the majority group, have the right to be offended by what a minority group expresses. Well, I guess we can be offended by it, but we shouldn't feel that we have the right to do anything about it, because that comes perilously close to imposing majority rules on a minority group. What's really offensive, when you come right down to it, is that conditions exist in the US that make any group feel that a lifestyle of violence and drug-abuse is somehow glamorous.

The misogyny in those works is a trickier question, because that's one minority group expressing hostility towards another.

This issue is why, as I stated in the bookaddiction post on this topic, I think there should be two important rules to follow in editing offensive content:
1) it should only be edited when it's something for children. Adults can just deal with being offended, or choose to avoid that author/artist.
2) it should be edited when the original intent /wasn't/ to be offensive, but was simply a product of a more ignorant time.

Heck, personally I'd like to see a ban on children's books that indoctrinate kids into particular religions... but I doubt I'll convince the general public of that!

[dreams-cametrue.livejournal.com]

I apologize if I sounded insensitive with my "ghetto-ness" phrase. I was searching for something to contrast the racism of the past with something that was an almost polar opposite from our current frame of reference.

Keep in mind that I grew up and went all the way through public school in a place where being WASP put me in the minority, and I have spent several stretches of years at a time in my life since when I lived in places where I was in the small minority of 20% or less. My high school graduating class was approximately 70% Black, and the area where I grew up was statistically 40% Catholic although many of the Catholic kids went to the parochial school. When I speak of the "ghetto" I speak more in terms of places where American Urban culture is in the majority. There are members of the Caucasian, Latino, Asian, and other ethnic groups as well as some Blacks who are a part of the American Urban culture.

I'm not sure I agree with you about changing unintended racism in historical literature. First, one must be certain of the author's original intent and second, it's a rather slippery slope to apply current understanding of what is offensive and what isn't offensive to historical literature. If we sanitize it and then another generation applies their own standards in 50 years then soon we will lose our historical perspective.

Thank you, and again I hope I don't come across as insensitive or offensive.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

You don't. And I'm offended by a lot of "ghettoness" too-- Have I mentioned lately how much I hate music videos? And a lot of it is offensive to women in particular.

I do have to point out that even living in a community where Euro-Americans are the numerical minority is not the same as being an ethnic minority in America (however uncomfortable and frightening it may be at times!). "Minority" status is probably the wrong term, but it's the one I know, and it refers to a group's sociopolitical power rather than their actual numbers-- hence the fact that I consider women a "minority."

It would be very interesting to see if there's ever been a case where the power structure has been reversed, so that a previously minority group became the more powerful one, which would raise all sorts of new and interesting questions about offensiveness. But to my knowledge, it's never happened.

And again, the only works I'd advocate changing are those intended for children, who internalize negative messages and stereotypes in a way that adults don't, and hence should be protected from them. I think it's better explained over at the "bookaddiction" post on this topic.

[dreams-cametrue.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends on how comprehensively you would see the power structure reversed. In the Mississippi Delta where I lived briefly, African-Americans were in a very overwhelming majority so over 80% the elected officials (from the Law Enforcement and Mayors all the way up to the Congressman) were Black. I understand it's not the same as being a minority in the overall society but I have experienced being refused service in a business because of my race, I've been taunted because of my race, and I've been harassed by the police because of my race. It was an interesting experience, one that I think many people would learn much from.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

*nods* I see what you mean. And yes, everyone should have the experience of being at the bottom of the heap sometime!

[conuly]

I don't want to give up my Narnia, nor yet my Dark Materials!

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

*laughs* One of the things I liked about Dark Materials was the anti-religious message!

As for Narnia... well, my feelings are very mixed. Perhaps you, too, would be interested in reading "The Magician's Book"?

[conuly]

You might like Hilari Bell. It's not overtly anti-religious, but in stark contrast to a LOT of fantasy there's little mention of gods.

Oh, you know what I mean. There's a lot of fantasy where gods manifest in very real and physical ways. This can get a little annoying as an agnostic/atheist, and I'm sure it's no less background annoying as a theist - real-life gods don't ever seem to show themselves as unarguably as the make-believe ones do! Even in HP, we *know* there's a real afterlife, we *know* that there's something beyond death (at least for wizards).

In Bell's work, this is what we have:

Goblin Wood? The gods may exist - but most of the main characters are being persecuted by the church for worshiping a devil they don't believe in. The church is shown to be manipulating events for earthly reasons, to be a hotbed of political intrigue filled with falliable people.

A Matter of Profit? The main character's people gave up on religion when they were enslaved and they got to see that the mountain the gods lived on was barren and empty.

The Farsala trilogy? There are many competing religious systems in the book. One group of people actively mocks the country they're invading (where the story takes place) for clinging to "ignorant superstition", aka "their religion". That ignorant superstition is shown to have been manipulated for political reasons.

The Shield, Sword, and Crown books? Two competing religions. One of our main characters is shown to be an atheist, because he was never helped by any god. The other main characters aren't shocked by this. The persecuted religion (complete with blood libel) is shown to be persecuted simply for political reasons.

The Knight and Rogue books? They DO have gods (which never manifest), but those gods are believed to care only about plants and animals, not about humans, so it's all a bit of a moot point.

It's a refreshing change, I'll tell you, to have your fantasy devoid of spiritual elements.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

I'll have to check her out. It's interesting-- I usually don't mind religion in fantasy as much because 1) the religions aren't the ones I know and dislike and 2) the story often makes it quite obvious that the gods involved actually, beyond a doubt, exist... in which case it makes perfect sense to worship them.

I definitely like the idea of reading a book with competing religions, though! It's good to have a little realism in fantasy.

[conuly]

YES. YOU DO HAVE TO CHECK HER OUT. IMMEDIATELY.

Though I don't think "super-powerful beings exist, it makes sense to worship them" is a logical argument. The gods in fantasy books aren't generally paragons (existing as they do in pantheons that mimic real-life polytheism to an extent), so why worship them? Because they'll destroy you otherwise?

To quote the great PTerry, in Feet of Clay, the argument from fear is not logical.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

huh-- good point. Although as a general rule, fantasy deities are great for pulling one's ass out of the fire, provided you show them the proper respect. I'd be willing to do a bit of kowtowing if it got me miracles on a regular basis, although in some ways that could be very distressing too (an aspect that Megan Whalen Turner addresses very well in her "Thief" trilogy).

And while the argument from (valid) fear may not be logical, it's sure as hell compelling. Look how easily people are convinced by imaginary threats, let alone real ones!

Are you going to Discworld Con (http://www.nadwcon.org/) this fall?

[conuly]

No money, no time :(