Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That question is being asked now.

http://www.theroot.com/views/should-blacks-collect-racist-memorabilia?wpisrc=root_lightbox

It's a four page article, but here's a little excerpt for your work blocked people.

I have a confession to make: I collect racist memorabilia. Perhaps it is because my mother seems to have as well. She kept a very small ashtray on a table in our living room featuring a Black Sambo figurine at its center. Since neither of our parents ever smoked, I know Mom didn't buy this object for its function; she bought it because she was intrigued, just as I was, even as a child. Why was this boy so very black -- jet black, the blackest of blacks -- and why was he depicted as naked? Again and again in idle moments, I would be drawn to the plight of this little black boy, frozen for all time in a racist form of in extremis, I guess one might say, with the reddest and thickest of lips, the whitest of eyes and the unutterably blackest of skin.

When it comes to the question of whether collecting those racist images is right, I often encounter two strong and diametrically opposed reactions from African Americans. Some can't seem to amass enough examples of these "collectibles" or "memorabilia" (as we euphemistically call these hideous images today). Others think the whole lot should be assembled into one gigantic bonfire, incinerated, and the ashes buried in an impenetrable vault, or strewn over the broadest reach of the deepest ocean never to be displayed again. It's as if these artifacts' complete and total obliteration could wipe the slate clean or erase the painful memory and palpably harmful effects of seeing ourselves reflected over and over through the murky mirror of the anti-black subconscious as deracinated, gluttonous, lascivious non-reflective sub-human beasts -- thieves, rapists, liars -- a species apart from all other human beings, dominated and ruled like other animals by our instincts and passions and not by our (sub-standard) brains.

I understand the latter reaction, so it may seem counterintuitive that I pursue a scholarly interest in what I think of as the everyday racism of the genre of American popular culture that I call "Sambo Art." In fact, one of the components of Harvard's extensive "Image of the Black in Western Art Archive" -- composed of some 26,000 images of black people in Western art, both noble and ignoble, in both high and low art forms -- is made up of these racist images, which I hope scholars will study, analyze and critique: first, to understand why and how they came into being and were used to demean and delimit our people as human beings and as citizens, and second, so that we can keep this sort of thing from being used against our people and any other subjugated people ever again, to paraphrase the defiant assertion of many Jewish people in relation to the Holocaust.

I'm currently working through a grant that I received from my university to do research on the use of various media to establish political commentary, so I'll weigh in. While our time has seen an overall change in social consciousness that racism is obviously wrong, that was not always the case. Not even a half a century ago discrimination based on race was completely acceptable, and artists reflected this social acceptance in their work. By making this point, I by no means wish to argue in any way shape or form that racism is wrong. I believe that it is wrong, but I must also recognize that I am just one person using my reasoning abilities to come to a conclusion on this issue. Others feel completely differently. There are even esteemed scholars who push racist arguments in their works. Obviously they are not backwoods rednecks riding around in trucks and waving their shotguns in their air. They have a high level of education and have experienced the intense criticisms of their work that commonly occur in graduate school.

Therefore, who is wrong? Most of us will agree that racism is wrong, but what makes our point more right than those of these scholars who argue the opposite? Our assumption that our argument is universally correct can only exist if we assume that we have discovered the unambiguous laws of the universe that dictate the actions of life. In other words, to automatically assume that we are completely right and the other side is completely wrong, we assume that we know the intentions of whatever or whoever created the universe. I don't know about you, but I don't know what created the universe or what that entity/process had in mind. Therefore I am not God and do not maintain the right to dictate the laws of the universe.

I believe that my assumptions that racism are completely unacceptable are the correct ones, but I must also recognize that everyone else around me is entitled to make their own conclusions. Therefore, to destroy pieces of art, literature, etc. that depict themes that may be construed as racist, we are effectively destroying our opposing argument not by thoughtful insight, but by force. I find such a philosophy extremely dangerous as this will lead to nothing less than a dangerously slippery slope. For example, weapons are dangerous and lawmakers wish to keep them out of the hands of children. A logical argument, but what happens when they decide that any toys appearing to be weapons are to be taken off shelves. Once people are given the power to destroy opposing arguments without proper intelligent argument, it will never stop.

I find racism appalling, yet I have no right to no allow another person to make their own argument. Nevertheless, that does not mean that I cannot perform legal actions to undermine the arguments that I do not agree with. That is why we vote, have the ability to protest, and have accesses to endless modes of communication.

Before anyone could even answer this question, you must first ask what is racist art? What is racism, for that matter?

I'm not asking out of sophistry. There's no objectivity. Stuff like the "Sambo Art" is easy, low hanging fruit. However, it's also arguably a relic of a age gone by that, while representing something uncomfortable and unpleasant, may rightfully deserve continue to exist as a reminder of how far we've come and how far we still have to go.

However, consider literature. Does this mean that we burn all the Clemens and Lovecraft?

How many people have to declare something is racist before it is so? Consider television. Apparently Dr. Who is racist because there's no black doctor. Consider movies. Mel Brooks has made movies with comedic racial elements in them that are celebrated by all races. Are those racist?

I don't see that art is racist in itself. Racism is an attribution that the viewer makes about the psychological state of the creator. Though we must also consider the theory that the meaning of art is created by the viewer, and thus can be completely separate to the creator's intentions.

Now, let's consider the case of anti-semitic art made by the Nazis as propaganda.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zoA-ZomYOKQ/R2jbSGLC_sI/AAAAAAAAB0k/b8WJIsi9mBE/s400/Der+Ewige-2.jpg

This caricature image was made in order to vilify Jews in the eyes of the German public. It's the poster for a film.

Are we to ignore this artwork and forget the lesson of history it presents? I would argue that this is a piece of deliberately cruel and cynical art made with malicious intent to create hatred. As such, it is not a work I would like to hang on my walls, but perhaps there is a place in a museum of history.

Let's look at the Robinson's Marmalade golliwog.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01290/gollywog_1290023a.jpg

When I was a boy in the 70s, you could collect tokens off the Robinson's jars and get Golliwog badges. Also, the Golliwog was still a reasonably popular children's doll similar to a teddy bear.

It could be argued this was a casual racism, but I think it was not done in a malicious spirit. The golliwog was a representation of the black face and hair, not intended to bring down shame and hate on black people. I was never fond of Robinson's, however my neighbours were and collected the badges in an innocent spirit of boyhood. I doubt this made them racist.

I'll try put my viewpoint as simply as possible: Saved so it can be used as an example to educate about the dangers of racism. If you go around destroying a piece of history, you're destroying the lessons that could be learnt from it.

So yes it should be saved, for educational purposes.

No. Destroying will result in us forgetting how the past was. Whenever someone talks about completely destroying art or any sort of creative medium, it reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 or 1984.

No, by removing racist art it sanitizes history as well as misrepresents the era and conveying emotion or expressing oneself (or societies values) in art is important and whether it's good or bad, racist art conveys this well.

Others think the whole lot should be assembled into one gigantic bonfire, incinerated, and the ashes buried in an impenetrable vault, or strewn over the broadest reach of the deepest ocean never to be displayed again.

Who?

Who are these "others" exactly? I've never heard anyone say this.

Is this just an invitation to argue with a strawman because that's not a real position that people have.

It should not be in my house.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
- George Santayana

Like it or not those views and events are a part of our history, and we should not sanitise it. If we start selectively erasing inconvenient facts from our past we could start to tread a very dangerous path. Destroying racist art removes part of the context as to why the civil rights movements developed, why they were important, and what hurdles they faced.

I hate that it is impossible to find the original Tom and Jerry cartoons as they were shown. It isn't so much that I want to see it, just that I find it offensive to pretend it never happened.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Who?
Who are these "others" exactly? I've never heard anyone say this.
Is this just an invitation to argue with a strawman because that's not a real position that people have.

You forgot the "...that I've met and discussed it with." on the end of that...
The writer, as a collector of such pieces, will have invited the topic into conversation a hell of a lot more unless you're a similar collector. Just because these things don't come up in conversation doesn't mean that people don't have these opinions. I know of some very righteously-minded individuals/shortsighted fools that can't see past their own noses (call them what you will) that have no qualms in pointing at something, declaring "this is wrong" and believing that all others should share their view, or they're wrong as well.

My vote goes to keeping them around, for exactly that reason. Who has the right to declare such pieces as "wrong" or to deny anyone else the right to appreciate them? Even if they're blatantly racist pieces through and through it needn't be the only thing you take away from it.

To not have relics of the past because they were deemed racist is a bad thing. Education is a good thing.

Have you taken your interval?



While only somewhat related, this movie depicts the burning of all art. In the near future everyone in the big cities are on a drug to make them emotionless.

It is a great film and it showcases what happens if we let the government control every aspect of your life.

I remember the German nursery book "10 little Negro Children" that I read growing up only 30 years ago.

But race and racism is an interesting thing in art. I did a photography exhibit about the all black towns in Oklahoma last year, and it was an interesting thing to tackle even in our modern times.

t that was created by a racist. Is that not another way of looking into the mind of how far he gone into racism? I saw a good episode on "Justified" about Hitler work of arts. He was a painter. The collector was the doctor from Voyager. It was a good show and gave two perspective on the art collection.

Saved-It's history!

Saved. I don't like the idea that art should be destroyed just because the artist may have held some unsavory opinions. It reminds me of those people who protest every time a Wagner opera is performed because of his alleged anti-semitism (which wasn’t even all that uncommon in the 19th century).

I think there should be to some extent, a separation of the artist and their art.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Saved. I don't like the idea that art should be destroyed just because the artist may have held some unsavory opinions. It reminds me of those people who protest every time a Wagner opera is performed because of his alleged anti-semitism (which wasn’t even all that uncommon in the 19th century).

I think there should be to some extent, a separation of the artist and their art.

Death of the Author

Enjoy

 Ahtman wrote:
I hate that it is impossible to find the original Tom and Jerry cartoons as they were shown. It isn't so much that I want to see it, just that I find it offensive to pretend it never happened.

I agree, the same principle applies to all art whether it be literature or visual mediums. Pretending things didn't happen in the past seems a nice way of sanitising the past and pretending nothing "un-rosy" happened.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Saved. I don't like the idea that art should be destroyed just because the artist may have held some unsavory opinions. It reminds me of those people who protest every time a Wagner opera is performed because of his alleged anti-semitism (which wasn’t even all that uncommon in the 19th century).

I think there should be to some extent, a separation of the artist and their art.

That's not what this is about, though. It's not about the independent opinions of the artist. It's about the concepts expressed by the specific work in front of you. Many of the advertising images made of (for example) dehumanized parodic black people may have been executed by people who were not themselves racist, but were working to spec on a (now-)offensive caricature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I hate that it is impossible to find the original Tom and Jerry cartoons as they were shown. It isn't so much that I want to see it, just that I find it offensive to pretend it never happened.

Yup. And I'd like to get a copy of Disney's Song of the South, and maybe some of those racist propaganda cartoons from WW2.

I love propaganda art, particularly the Soviet art, its is often racist, or otherwise belligerent, or heavily deceptive, and/or supportive of terrible evils but it is so often stunningly beautiful.

Some relatively innocent examples of Soviet political art:









I look beyond the idolising of the Soviet state, or worse Stalin himself to see the quality artistic vision in these pieces,

The last one is especially striking.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Let's look at the Robinson's Marmalade golliwog.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01290/gollywog_1290023a.jpg

When I was a boy in the 70s, you could collect tokens off the Robinson's jars and get Golliwog badges. Also, the Golliwog was still a reasonably popular children's doll similar to a teddy bear.

It could be argued this was a casual racism, but I think it was not done in a malicious spirit. The golliwog was a representation of the black face and hair, not intended to bring down shame and hate on black people. I was never fond of Robinson's, however my neighbours were and collected the badges in an innocent spirit of boyhood. I doubt this made them racist.

Golliwogs were considered racist on the backs of revisionist all too easily offended scum. The traditional golliwog goes back a long way and was a popular and common type of doll. The golliwog is a particualr shade and attire because its a traditional design, not a racist statement. Indeed if those hostile to Golliwogs thought a minute or two they might consider that having golliwogs in a collection of dolls, as a child of the times would do is a sign of racial harmony not segregation. Dolls repesently caucasian character from the same era were also often sterotyped, nothing is meant by this. It isnt racism or casual racism, however complaining about is certainly is ignorant revisionism.

There's a lot of art that supported really odious political positions, as Orlanth's post showing some examples of Socialist Realism demonstrates.

Thing is, art is a great insight in to history. You want to understand how people thought, you look at their art. What's offensive about the ashtray with the racist figure is what the artist and original purchaser thought about black people at that time, and the answer to dealing with that part of our history isn't to pretend it didn't happen.

Similarly, I love a lot of the Socialist Realism stuff like Orlanth, but not just for its aesthetics. I love it because it so perfectly captures the mindset of the Soviet regime, the absolute insistance on the dream of a utopian society, and the part that played in allowing people to justify the horrible things they were doing in the real world.


Banning or destroying art is denying a means of looking in to the mindset of the people of the time. A way of understanding what people thought, and therefore why they acted as they did. I get that doing so isn't always nice, but more knowledge is always a good thing, even when its about something really unpleasant.

I would not call the last one racist. It is about racism, but depicting it is not the same as condoning it.

All Art should be saved. Whether its Porn, Movies, TV, Sculptures, Books or Paintings. Or its should at least be recorded in a way that we can access it at a later date

For once i'm with the majority.

Don't destroy art to be 'PC'. At it's worse let it set as a reminder for how far we've gone.

While I do believe that racism is completely and utterly wrong, destruction of art is the same for me.
Art is the reflection of a time, its ideals or a Person and his/her Feelings.
Ist reflecting what was accepted then. Art is a window into past times and minds, why should we destroy it?
Do we even have the right to destroy it just because we believe it to be wrong? We have the right to shun such things, yes but I do not think that we have the right to destroy someones work.