A few months ago, I chanced upon a piece of art which was up for sale at one of Russ Cochran’s on-line comic art auctions. It was a Hal Foster drawn Tarzan Sunday which is usually an event in original art collecting because of the rarity of such samples.
As you can see, it is a fairly reasonable example of Foster’s art on Tarzan. It was, however, a no-go area for me whatever my feelings for Foster’s artistry. The reasons are simple: this piece of art would not have given me any pleasure and I would have been embarrassed to put it on display in my apartment. I simply don’t have the blindness or nostalgia for racism which allows for an enjoyment of this kind of art. There’s the Aryan beauty standing before the squat depravity that is the Cannibal Chief and later the rather simian qualities of the cannibal tribe as they howl for blood. I have as little passion for the subject matter as I would a depiction of bestiality. There are many pit holes in collecting original art but this particular aspect is less often highlighted. After all, wouldn’t most comic art collectors salivate over the original art to this Frazetta-drawn cover…
…with its razor-toothed natives within an inch of pawing at the white female’s succulent breasts? Any objections would be easily dismissed with the notion that these were more gentle and less enlightened times where such stereotypes were the norm. And clearly they were. The fact that the art displays beautiful draftsmanship and is historically important ensures that such aspects are easily brushed under the carpet. A collector friend of mine who finds such images unpleasant was less happy with this easy acceptance which obviates concerns for subject matter. He placed a comment on this Frazetta cover (when it was displayed on Comic Art Fans) comparing it to Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s depiction of Storm Saxon in V for Vendetta.
As many readers will know, there is a whole area of collecting known as Jungle Girl art of which one of the prime examples must be this particular piece by Dave Stevens:
It’s all in good fun, both mocking homage and parody. It would seem churlish by some to find these items in any way offensive. There are of course people who collect “coon” art for historical purposes (which is absolutely valid) and others because it gives them pleasure. I don’t find the latter aspect particularly respectable.
Another story in the same vein which I chanced upon recently is “Yellow Heat” by Bruce Jones and Russ Heath from Vampirella #58 (Mar. 1977) the scans of which can be found here). The entire story was sold at a Heritage auction for $4370 in 2002
The story is one of Jones’ best remembered from Vampirella in part because of Heath’s lovely hyper-realistic art but mostly because of its twist ending. [I would suggest that those unfamiliar with “Yellow Heat” read the story before continuing with this article.] You’ll find two appreciations of “Yellow Heat” here and here. The Comics Journal message board regular Mike Hunter describes the effect as such:
“Bruce Jones and Russ Heath wreaking havoc with our “we humans are all alike, after all” expectations in “Yellow Heat”.”
Jones uses a number of tricks of sleight of hand to achieve the shock ending in this story. Part of the justification for the ending would appear to lie in the first page where a sort of incipient famine and breakdown in society is described. Jones’ script in the first panel would however suggest that the famine has not arrived and that these are much more bountiful times. The Masai warriors don’t look malnourished in the least which lessens the impact of this early description and any expectations of its relevance. There is also the description of the captive lady as a “beauty” and Heath’s great depiction of the same which effectively throws off the reader.
The confluence of a familiar coming of age story mixed with an unexpected twisting of facts and sensibilities is also a factor. These issues would be further heightened for readers familiarizing themselves with this story for the first time in the 21st century. With a greater appreciation for distant cultures, many readers would be cognizant of the fact that the Masai do not practice cannibalism and would not expect such a denouement. Others would realize that such accusations of cannibalism were often used by white colonialist as an excuse for their excesses thus eliminating such a possibility from their minds. Nor would the modern day reader (or one during the 70s I suspect) expect any writer to produce such blatantly racist caricatures of Africans in the final two panels. Readers perusing a Warren magazine in the 70s would probably be familiar with the elevated ideals of the EC line where stories like “Judgment Day” saw publication. Few readers would expect a backward looking ethos and this makes the ending that much more surprising. Perhaps it might be a useful exercise for readers to imagine a gentle story about Jews taking care of orphaned children during the Black Death before eating them in the story’s final panel. Children aren’t as delectable as beautiful African women but you get what I mean.
While I haven’t read any interviews with Campbell or Heath concerning the genesis of “Yellow Heat”, my suspicion is that there must be some explanation for the strange sensibility on display here. The story was, after all, created during the 70s and not the early 20th century when popular art was considerably less informed. It is entirely possible that “Yellow Heat” was created out of naiveté and plain wrong-headedness but it is also possible that it was born of a flippant underground sensibility – a remark on the excesses of the past (though it has to be said, nothing in the story even suggest this). In many ways, it is much more educational to read these stories “blind” than to rely on any form of stated authorial intent.
There are better examples of these kinds of cultural jibes from more recent times like Robert Crumb’s “When the Niggers Take Over America!” which is so hysterical in its excesses, all but the most simple-minded would mistake it for anything but satire.
There’s also the notable example of Chaland’s An African Adventure where every form of jungle imbued racism is brought forth.
There are the malevolent natives…
….and there’s this scene where a tribesman is slapped:
It should be clear to most readers that the only person taking a slap here is Hergé and Tintin in the Congo.
On the other hand, it would appear to many readers that Jones, Heath and Foster were drawing from the same well with respect to their imagery – the corpulent chief and malicious cannibals in both Tarzan and “Yellow Heat” being the prime examples. On a purely textural basis, Jones and Heath’s story is truly ambiguous in its racial sensitivity. Is “Yellow Heat” actually quite factual (this seems impossible), the product of a more enlightened age where having fun with racial stereotypes is perfectly acceptable (perhaps a satire; I’m sure certain African Americans would find it harmless enough) or is it symptomatic of something much less wholesome?
The best counter-example of this phenomenon is, of course, Matt Baker's jungle-goddess comics, in which native Africans are (for obvious reasons) always drawn as actual human beings. That Baker is one of the best cartoonists of the era doesn't exactly hurt, either.
I wonder if it's really possible to cartoon in a traditional manner- Where nearly everything is exaggerated to the foreground or diminished to the back-while sticking to genre conventions, in which a bad guy must be really bad ( let's not forget that white criminal types in genre material also threaten "womens' purity") and the good guy good, but also depict African tribes people in inoffensive ways without simply making the Africans good, or secretly good.
I mean, if you think about drawing African tribes-people in a turn-of-the-century setting in a comic book style, it would be very difficult to not produce what would look like a racist caricature. The response by contemporary cartoonists is to draw black people with white features and simply have the colorist fill in a brown…
The facts are that Africans features are different that white peoples, that by Western standards the language, culture, etc., of African tribes people were very primitive.
Were these things depicted with an eye towards accuracy? No. Very little pulp bothered with such concerns about anything/everything.
I'm not suggesting that racism is not an issue re: classic comics/pulp, but I am suggesting that it might be a little too easy to vilify every depiction as though it were on par with the Klan, or overt pleas to White Supremacy.
Sorry I don't have time to really lay it out here..
Black people and white people look somewhat different, except in the not infrequent cases where they don't. Neither looks especially like a cartoon, as Matt Thorn has pointed out in other contexts.
The stereotypes depicted in that Tarzan strip were the same ones used at the time to justify a nationwide system of apartheid and injustice. That wasn't an accident occasioned by the limitations of the comic medium. It was racism.
"if you think about drawing African tribes-people in a turn-of-the-century setting in a comic book style, it would be very difficult to not produce what would look like a racist caricature."
Yes, mostly because of the history of the medium, which is, as Suat notes, steeped in racist imagery and caricature. Yet Matt Baker managed it, according to Dirk, perhaps because he cared to try.
Suat, I've thought a little about this. Comics more or less came of age during a period of intense racial bigotry (The late nineteenth/early twentieth century was definitely more racist than, the period which just proceeded it, and arguably more racist, especially in the north, than the antebellum period.) This is true more or less of film as well…but film has continued to be a mass, popular medium in a way that comics hasn't exactly D.W. Griffith may still be highly regarded, but people aren't exactly pining for Birth of a Nation, I don't think. But, many comics artists (Spiegelman, Ware, Crumb, Deitch, etc. etc.) are very nostalgic for this period, and I think the nostalgia for racism is attendant upon that. (Not that those artists are all racist or anything; I just think the impulse comes out in various ways.)
Overall, I think it's painful sign of comics' insularity and general failure as a medium, as well as just being unpleasant in its own right.
I haven’t read enough of Matt Baker’s Rulah to comment on its racial sensitivity but, if I remember correctly, I think even Jesse Marsh’s Tarzan comics don’t indulge in some of the racial antics mentioned above. In any case, to some readers a white person lording over whole groups of black people might not be that ideal either. It does appear that one of the bloggers I mention above (who loves “Yellow Heat”) might be African American, so could it be that I’m being too sensitive about cannibal imagery in modern times? I was also surprised how people can collect and be so enthusiastic about this kind of art with so little appreciation for what it contains . Both the Thunda cover and “Yellow Heat” pages are owned by prominent original art collectors.
Have you seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled? It's basically about the fetishization of past racial kitsch and how it connects to current racial attitudes in unfortunate ways (though, at the same time, Lee also clearly enjoys the old racially tinged vaudeville routines.) I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I thought it was smart and funny…until the end, which kind of sucked. But so it goes….
"I’m being too sensitive about cannibal imagery in modern times?"
I don't think so. I mean, I think it is possible to like art that is racist for a variety of reasons (based on its formal qualities, or on other factors, or even on its having something interesting to say about race.) On the other hand, I think saying "I really don't like this because it's blatantly racist" is a pretty valid aesthetic reaction.
I think asking "why don't people think this is more of a problem" is a reasonable question as well. There are various possible answers, some of them innocuous, some of them less so…but I don't think it's wrong to raise the issue.
I had no idea who the Golliwog was prior to reading Alan Moore's Black Dossier, but I was surprised when I first saw the character. Thanks to Jess Nevin's annotations, I know a little more about the Golliwog and have since come to think that Moore's inclusion of the character is an explicit endorsement of the type of seemingly innocent but potentially hurtful nostalgia being discussed here.
Also, while there are plenty of examples of African stereotypes in comic books and comic strips, I think Asian stereotypes are, at the very least, equally prevalent in American books, going all the way back to the Yellow Kid and Fu Manchu. Characters like Green Lantern's sidekick Pieface and the Wonder Woman villain Egg Fu are still hanging around today.
The Yellow Claw is a character in Jeff Parker's Agents of Atlas, but his Wikipedia entry shows his clearly racist origins, complete with long finger nails, pointed ears, and exaggerated eyes. Maybe Parker is trying to rehabilitate the character, but why bother? The character can't be so beloved that any one would mind if Marvel scrapped the Yellow Claw, forcing Parker to create a new villain free of any pre-existing racist baggage.
Eric made a similar point about the Golliwog, too.
Has anyone seen "How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman"? There is a certain history, no a wide one to be sure, of reclaiming that particular (cannibal) stereotype. For what (little) that may be worth in this discussion.
I haven’t seen either the above film or Bamboozled. What was wrong with the ending of Bamboozled? And how does "How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman" reclaim the cannibal stereotype?
As for Fu Manchu et al., I suspect that a person’s reaction to such imagery may depend on the person’s immediate environment and social circumstances (I also seem to see less of it in comics as compared to black stereotypes). This applies to positive images as well. I’ve found that certain Chinese Americans were quite thankful for the somewhat positive images of Asian Americans in Gene Yang’s American Born Chinese for instance – hence altering their dispositions to the comic. I wasn’t and found it poorly written. It’s also interesting to compare the marked difference in the portrayal of the Chinese in Terry and the Pirates (re: Connie) and The Blue Lotus. What a difference a bit of personal knowledge makes.
I’ve also asked some white Americans about their reactions to the xenophobic depictions of Caucasians in certain Hong Kong films for example – I think reactions here will differ depending on whether you’re living in a country with a Chinese majority.
"Black people and white people look somewhat different, except in the not infrequent cases where they don't. Neither looks especially like a cartoon, as Matt Thorn has pointed out in other contexts."
First, black people and white people look very different, if we're using humanity as we know it as reference material. First, you have the most readily apparent feature, skin color, and it goes on from there; lips, noses, brows, eyes, body types.
Forensic scientists are able to determine pretty easily wether a skeleton is that of a black, white, asian or native american person.
Second, I don't know who Matt Thorn is, or why he wrote what he did, but it sort of echoes my point; people don't look like cartoons, cartoons are exaggerations. White cartoonists have historically exaggerated the white people they drew to type; the hero is chiseled jaw, the boss is fat, the street kid is scrawny, the lady in distress has huge tits.
I'd argue that the depictions of Africans in these comics in particular is not a clear cut example of a generalized, severe racism, it's simply another type to play with. It was convenient. I don't think it played to conscious, sober fears of black people, I think it played to a general cultural ignorance, like a lot of other things in comics, and to a fascination with the exotic.
I'm sure many of the artists and industry folks involved in creating this material thought of themselves as liberal or progressive regarding race.
Ethnicity in general was treated really broadly and coarsely in early print media and included depictions of races/groups that would be presented in the same light if a history of violence/oppression occurred.So, as I see it,
the kind of overt racism of the KKK has no real, causal relationship to these depictions.
Throughout Europe, where there were very few black people, lots of "Jungle Adventure" books were all over the place, yet the prevailing opinions about race in many of those countries were radically different than ours ( or your average lefties ideas about ours, anyhow.)
I mean, this stuff is just so safe to talk about. If we really want to get after people for cartoonish and offensive depictions of black people, we should be talking about Lil Wayne or The Game.
Sorry, gotta mention a couple more things: A cartoon exaggeration of the physical features of a black person isn't inherently racist, it's that we've been hemmed and hawed into a corner so we read these depictions as a code of sorts.
Cartooning is a matter of exaggerating or diminishing what could be perceived in real life in order to get it to read, in tiny boxes. There really are only so many ways that can be done, and some work better than others.
If I were to draw a cartoon depiction of a black person, but have them behave in the narrative in ways that have nothing to do with the stereotype, would that still be racist? Is the Fat Albert cartoon racist?
I just see this crazy kind of psychic dissonance going on wherein admitting that black people and white people are in any way different is like arguing the earth is flat.
I see a greater problem with lefties refusing to allow those differences to flourish and become meaningful, imagining that minorities, if only given enough money and opportunity, would become slightly darker versions of them, just like their drawn in so many hacked out anti-racism comics.
Facts: Cannibalism, as a cultural practice, did take place in Africa. Some tribes did put bones through their noses. White people have been killed by primitive African tribes-people.
Yeah, it's just crazy to have used this as raw material for an issue of TERRIFYING ADVENTURE TALES, circa '49…
"I mean, this stuff is just so safe to talk about. "
And yet, somehow, someway, there are still people out there who feel it incumbent upon them to pretend it isn't racist.
"I just see this crazy kind of psychic dissonance going on wherein admitting that black people and white people are in any way different is like arguing the earth is flat."
One way they're different, as Dirk points out, is that black people are less likely to get off on racist portrayals of black people. Which is an important difference, IMHO. But some people aren't able to admit it…perhaps it's the psychic dissonance?
"If we really want to get after people for cartoonish and offensive depictions of black people, we should be talking about Lil Wayne or The Game"
Yes, because that's really dangerous and edgy, to call rap lyrics offensive. Conservatives haven't been desperately wallowing in that shit for the past twenty-five years or anything. Way to live life on the edge.
Really, Uland, you're sounding like a caricature yourself. You're standing up for minorities by defending 60 year old racist depictions? By denying that caricatures had anything to do with the actual racism in this country? What next — "oh, Birth of a Nation"; it's really just a sign that black and white people are different!"
And by the way….there are black people who are white. Hard to believe, I know…it's almost as if it's a cultural category rather than a god-given distinction.
"What was wrong with the ending of Bamboozled?"
It's kind of the typical thing with Spike Lee endings; the plot just sort of dissolves before the need to have people start shooting each other for no particular reason. Most of the film is essentially a (very funny) satire; then all of a sudden it turns into more or less incoherent melodrama. There are still some good bits even up to the end, but overall the last half hour would have been better left off the screen.
Essentially, this kind of things plagues American comics of all types and stripes, including the supposedly "best" of the medium: Eisner's Ebony White, McCay's Jungle Imp, Crumb's "Angelfood McSpade." While Eisner and McCay can be cut some slack (if not forgiven) because of their position in history (time and place), it's harder to forgive contemporary purveyors of nostalgic pastiche of racist caricatures. Why does Dan Clowes feel the need to go there in "Gynecology"? Why does Moore in Black Dossier? I think it's fine to "parody" such racist portrayals in order to critique them or to say something interesting about present-day race and racism (a la Bamboozled)–but to merely "quote" them without critical context or closer analysis is more likely to perpetuate harmful notions of racial difference. This tends to be what happens unfortunately. Crumb is a slightly more complex case, since he is so over-the-top in his portrayals they CAN be seen as parody (and therefore critique)–at the same time, I'm not buying it as such in most cases…I just see Crumb airing his dirty mental laundry without really being critical of said laundry…so there too, I see it as problematic, distasteful, and dangerous.
Uland's notions of racial difference seem "commonsensical" but are they really so commonsensical…I'm not so sure. Yes, some Africans had cannibalistic practices, but these were rarely (never?) part of a kind of daily diet of depraved consumption of other humans (as it was so often portrayed to be). Rather, they tended to be ceremonial practices performed on special occasions, often to show respect to the one consumed (whether friend or enemy). I don't know all the details, but the cannibalism one tends to see in racist portrayals (depraved savages gathered around the pot for their evening meals) are untrue…even if "cannibalism" itself was practiced in certain contexts.
The thing about phenotypic differences (skin color, etc.) is that, while they exist, they are rarely what socially defines race. I had a black friend in college whose skin was much much lighter than mine…but she was considered "black", while I was "white"–As a Jew, I would have been considered mixed race, or even black 50 years earlier–but in St. Louis in the 1990's, I was a honky. The point is not that there aren't difference between people–of course there are. I look different from Uland, even though we're both "white" (I think–hard to see behind the Rorschach mask). Physical differences exist on individual levels—as a society, WE decide how we group people according to those physical differences, and what physical differences "count." Genetic differences between racial groups are marginal…as are genetic differences between humans and chimps…but as a culture WE decide that chimps don't qualify as human (don't get human rights, etc.)–the same choices created, justified, and perpetuated racism…
In either case…no one on earth looks like McCay's Jungle Imp–so citing mimesis as some kind of excuse for these portrayals doesn't make sense.
Noah, you're too ideologically committed to give what I wrote a fair hearing. You're misinterpreting my arguments, or you're skipping over them. It's just not worth it.
I mean, the Li'l Wayne thing isn't about offensive rap lyrics, it's about black people participating in exactly the same depictions that, if they were presented by a white person, would be seen as irrevocably racist.
I'm not interested in standing up for minorities, or anybody for that matter, I'm interested in trying to understand these depictions without seeing them through these way too convenient lenses that activists, "academics" and journalists have relied on for way too long.
"Noah, you're too ideologically committed"
Yes, and you have no ideological commitments yourself. Whatever.
Eric wrote: "I don't know all the details, but the cannibalism one tends to see in racist portrayals (depraved savages gathered around the pot for their evening meals) are untrue…even if "cannibalism" itself was practiced in certain contexts."
Nothing is held up to the truth test in pulp fiction or comics. Everything is exaggerated.
As far as the issue of race itself and how these distinctions are made, I understand that it's really rough, and in many cases not at all useful. But I think regardless of how we might like to revise it or expand it, the dominant, simplified conceptions of race aren't really going to go anywhere. I know plenty of people who don't fit neatly into a racial camp, but at the same time, when someone asks me to think about "black culture", I'm essentially forced to think in very general terms. I don't think this is so much a matter of lack of imagination, I think it's more due to how limited we are, not only in understanding a giant, abstract mass, but understanding ourselves as a part of one or another.
Noah- I'm not "defending" or attacking these depictions. I don't feel a need to issue some kind of blanket condemnation like you seem to, and I'm not celebrating these images either.
I'm more interested in trying to get to a more nuanced understanding of this imagery, as it seems unreasonable to conflate it with all-out, sociopathic racism.
"And by the way….there are black people who are white."
That's hilarious. Thanks Noah. Thanks Oberlin.
"the dominant, simplified conceptions of race aren't really going to go anywhere"
Conceptions of race have changed hugely in the last 30 years, and substantially in even the last 15.
There's a fine line between saying "nothing is going to change" and arguing that things shouldn't change, or don't need to change.
Blanket condemnations aren't necessary. But I don't see the point of denying the existence of racism. Or rather, I do see the point, unfortunately.
There are black people whose skin color is white. Why is this so difficult to get your head around?
Uland: I don't think anyone here is out to vilify the cartoonists mentioned in the article as "sociopathic" racists. May I ask what was your reaction to "Yellow Heat" when you read it?
"Black culture" can be seen as a historical and/or cultural term…it need not refer to phenotypic characteristics at all.
It's funny that Uland went to the "there are differences between the races" argument to claim that depicting them as different is not racist or problematic…
Then when I pointed out these difference may well not exist, he argues that nothing is depicted realistically in cartoons…
but Uland, you are the one who invoked some notion of the "real" differences between races to begin with…
Eisner, btw, makes a claim that overexaggerated racial characteristic are just a necessary part of cartooning (where all things are exaggerated)–so it's a similar claim to Uland's…but he also basically admits that his portrayal of Ebony White was "racist" (even if Eisner wasn't necessarily a racist himself)…that it was a product of the times…and that he would have done it differently from the vantage point of later history.
This is why current pastiches of racial stereotypes is so problematic. Now we do have the vantage point of history (at least to some degree–obviously racism still exists)–but people insist on reproducing these old harmful images. Why? Out of nostalgia? This seems like a bad reason.
Oh…and we can call certain comics and comics depictions "racist" without necessarily saying that their creators are "sociopathic racists."
I mean…I do see Crumb as racist, for instance…but I haven't met the guy, so I'm unwilling to commit fully to judging him personally. His work, though, is sexist, racist, etc.
Of course, I never met Hitler either, but I'm willing to make judgments based on his actions, writings, and speeches.
Since Crumb never hurt anyone on that scale, I'm willing to be less hasty.
Uland, why is it so vital to your sense of comics that blacks be depicted as savages. It really seems important to you.
Anyone remember that Wired cover in which they made OJ look white? They gave him new hair, blue eyes, and caucasian skin, but they left his other features intact. He ended up looking a lot like Val Kilmer.
And over 100 years ago, Italians and Irish weren't considered to be "white." So the notions of race do change, which implies that they are culturally constructed. To what extent is a question, though one I never expect to answer. Noah seems to think they are so 100% and Uland seems to think they are "natural." A classic dualism, says I channeling the voice of Asterios Polyp.
In fact, due to the human genome project, scientists have discovered that there are no such thing as separate races for human beings in the scientific sense of the term. So our use of "race" has no scientific basis and is, again, culturally constructed. Though science itself is a cultural construction…
Also, I think Dan Clowes is examining our need for and interest in racist imagery. Look at who sells Epps the figurine in "Gynecology." Clowes furthers his exploration in the Ghost World movie. So I wouldn't label him a racist like eric b. does.
Eric was saying that some of Clowes' stories were racist, not that Clowes himself was, I think.
I guess ULAND has never heard of SF writer Tobias Buckell.
Or, well, the historic fact of "passing" in the US…
I recommend Nella Larsen's Passing to anyone who hasn't read it.
I don't really know much about these comics, but someone once told me that he had made some sort of "research" on Tarzan and concluded that it wasn't really racist; that there were heroes and villains of both (or how many they might have been) races. What I know is that in fact there are tribes who practice the sharpening of their teeth, and there are cannibalism as well, specially against pygmies. I'm not trying to be apologetic or anything, I think that, despite of these things being real, ideally the depictions should be somewhat even overtly zealous in order to not create some distorted, exaggerated notion of the thing.
I wanted to say this because there is that whole thing about Hergé being a racist, I don't think he was, unless in some very naive and less evil sense. I just can picture the possibility of analogue situations being told intra-racially, and there would be no problem with them, any implicit suggestion of some dire inferiority of some kind. I've heard that actually, when Hergé was about to write "Tintin in China" (not the actual title), a friend of his, a catholic priest or something, advised him to research a lot to avoid offensive stereotypes and this sort of thing, and even presented him some expert in other cultures or specifically Chinese culture, I don't remember.
Soares
About the whole racial stuff… damn. I'd not resort to the "there is no such thing as race" phrasing, even though, this is by most relevant effects, a fairly accurate way to put. The problem with that is that it is simply possible to find or make up racial groups that will hold up on scientific criteria. So it wouldn't be exactly inaccurate to say that there are races either. It's somewhat like the Pluto is a planet or not deal, depends on the criteria one set. As long as we're not talking about clonal populations, it will be always possible to distinguish them, and those for whom the racial classifications are for some reason highly important will always be capable of pointing to something and saying "see? So there are races".
The heart of the matter is that racial (biological) differences are not a really big deal, very far from the direst racist scenarios where the social and cultural scenarios are pretty much determined in these genetic differences between people, and to think that whichever typically disadvantaged groups are doomed, incapable of ever being "slightly darker versions" of white people in these aspects.
To sum up, the whole racist/racialist deal, in the sense of trying to root extant social differences in biology, is basically a lot of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, plus hasty generalizations and selective data, and absurd dismissal of complex social dynamics and psychology. Like creationism and ID, there will be different degrees of sophistication, and it's good to avoid pitfalls, like the less nuanced "there are no races" claim, which to them is somewhat like hearing an "evolutionist" saying something like "evolution is true, look, here is the missing link that we needed to prove it" – by which I mean making too much of a claim of marginal importance to the core, and which is at the same time easy to misinterpret and turn into a straw man.
Soares
I think you're saying that Herge couldn't have been a racist because he wasn't an evil or malicious person. I think that's a fallacy. People can act in racist ways or create racist caricatures in their work (and Herge certainly did that) without being monsters or Nazis, just as you can tell a lie or betray a friend without being the Devil incarnate. People are complicated, which means, among other things, that you can treat many people well (even people of other races, sometimes) while still holding, and occasionally acting on, very unpleasant racial beliefs.
Does that mean Herge should be utterly condemned and all his work banned? No, of course not. But I do think it means that it's fair to point out that, at moments, he was racist, and to bring up that fact when considering his work.
"I've heard that actually, when Hergé was about to write "Tintin in China" (not the actual title), a friend of his, a catholic priest or something, advised him to research a lot to avoid offensive stereotypes and this sort of thing, and even presented him some expert in other cultures or specifically Chinese culture, I don't remember."
I presume this is about The Blue Lotus and Chang. It should be noted that the Japanese were depicted as caricatures in that story, mostly likely in sympathy with the mainland Chinese who were being invaded at that point in time.
…invaded by the Japanese, who were of course themselves deeply racist and saw themselves as superior to Koreans, Han Chinese et al.
At the same time, "Yellow Peril" type racism, often supported by the pulps of time, usually lumped all those group into a single vague yet threatening Orient…
I guess my point is that racism can be very fluid: you can make caricatures of the Japanese because you have Chinese friends; of the Chinese because you need to make them look like acceptable targets for conquest; of East Asians in general to address (I guess?) a fear of cheap immigrant labour.
The link to the full “Yellow Heat” story doesn’t work anymore (they took a number of the images down) but the whole thing is currently available over here: http://www.besthorrorcomics.com/pdf/Yellow_heat.pdf
This one includes a preface and afterword by a seemingly unnamed commentator who does a pretty weak job of trying to mitigate the racism inherent to the story…
Pingback: Comic Liberals | murderbymedia3