According to The Brooklyn Daily News, the Brooklyn Public Library has restricted access to the 1930s children's book, Tintin Au Congo after a reader complained that the images from the book were racially offensive as the images depicted "Africans as monkeys." You can see images of the book through Google Images. (And, yes, please take note of the irony.)
The story concerns a young reporter traveling to the Congo who teaches the natives "right from wrong," which is a euphemism for advancing a pro-colonist message. During the trip, the young reporter kills numerous animals and, somewhere along the way, takes a few photos. Accoridng to Wikpedia, Tintin au Congo is part of an 80-year comic series, The Adventures of Tintin, that has been translated in to 50 languages and sol over 200 million copies.
According to library spokesperson, the book was relocated because it "had illustrations that were racially offensive and inappropriate for children." Individuals can still read the book. However, they must request a showing of the book in a special room 24 hours in advance. On the local CBS station, a library spokesperson discussed the move in terms of security for the book: the book has not been banned but relocated for its protection; patrons can still see it but they must see it under certain conditions and under certain supervision.
The ACLU is not happy with the move as it defined the act as censorship.
As The Brooklyn Daily News notes, the Brooklyn library received requests to ban or relocate 25 other books such as Godless by Anne Coulter. Only Tintin was relocated.
In 2011, Stephen Spielberg will release a movie based on the Tintin series.
I wish I could argue that the move by the library is an over-reeaction to a book. Unfortunatley, it seems much worse.
First, the restriction of the book displays a very cynical conception of the library's patrons. What's striking about this controversy is that though the book is old it is not precious in any way. If something were to occur with the book, the library could order a new one. It is not as if there will be a shortage of these books, especially if a rather prominent directer is making a movie on the book. Consequently, relocating the book to protect it reflects a rather cynical view of the library patrons as the staff believes that the patrons would destroy it rather than read it.
Second, like other attemps to ban information or offensive discourse and texts, this effort will be futile. Again, the book will receive only more attention since it will be a movie by a prominent director. While the library's patron may have restricted access to one book, the controversy will raise attention to the book, images, and movies and more people will see it. It is unlikely that all of the books will be banned, especially since it is available through amazon. As noted early, images from the book are available through Google.
No matter how hard the patrons or the library tries, banning one book will not make the images disappear. Banning one book raises attention to the act of the ban. Further, by restricting access to the book, there will be an inevitable backlash by free speech advocates and anti-P.C. advocates. The banning also diminishes the ethos of the library as the library is engaging in the process of restricting information rather than allowing more access to information because a patron or staff dislikes the message or image in one book.
Of course, why stop here? The library should allow each citizen to have the opportunity to go to the library and demand that a book should be restricted because of the book's level of offense. Why should race be the only criterion for offense? What about gender, pornography, politics, philosophy, art, religion, science, real estate, sports, or gardening be subject to tastes? Disagreements in these ares could lead to negative feelings or cause disruption between citizens.
It seems that instead of using the book for the purpose of education, i.e. how images or ideas situated in a specific historical period presented a message that dimisnished the rights of others, those who want to ban the book would rather say: "Bad idea! Get rid of it." If only those wishing to ban the book could see how there is a larger, more important education purpose in this controversy.
But that seems to be asking too much and the library's actions would rather restrict access to information, which conflicts with its ethos and function.
