Little Black Sambo/Sam and the Tiger

As the author of a forthcoming book being referred to on the list, I hesitate to join the discussion because (1) I do not want to give the impression that I am joining the discussion to covertly publicize the book, and (2) I do not want to inhibit discussion of the book when it comes out.

However, one comment about the book needs correcting, as well as one about Bannerman. I write to correct those and to share some of what went into the new telling of "Little Black Sambo" which Jerry Pinkney has illustrated. And I want to share some more thoughts on racism. I hope that what I say here will not inhibit people from writing whatever they wish about the book or anything else I have written or will write. Please don't worry about "not wanting to hurt my feelings." I am an adult and hold no one responsible for my feelings except myself.

First, let me address the inaccuracies:

Carol Hurst wrote:

"Most of us know that Helen Bannerman wrote Little Black Sambo unaware of the fact that she was combining Indian and African people and also unaware of the racial put-downs it contained."

Posterity has not been kind to Helen Bannerman. She was an educated woman. She was well aware of what she was doing in placing a black boy in India. She was creating fantasy.

It is ironic that there has been a thread on the list about fantasy and the resistance of children to it, and yet, for so long it has gone unrecognized that "Little Black Sambo" is fantasy, set neither in Africa or India. Let me quote a couple of passages from Elizabeth Hay's now out-of-print biography, "Sambo Sahib: The Story of Little Black Sambo and Helen Bannerman", (Barnes & Noble, 1981).

The first is from a review which appeared in The Spectator on 12/2/1899, the time of the original publication of LBS. The review indicates that at the time of publication the book was perceived as fantasy, a perception that was lost fairly quickly:

[The book] "was not written with one eye on parents and guardians, or the inconsistency of mixing up the African type of black with delightful adventures with tigers in an Indian jungle would never have been allowed to pass. As it is, Little Black Sambo makes his simple and direct appeal in the great realm of make-believe without paying the slightest attention to the unities or caring in the least about anything but the amusement of the little boys and girls for whom he was so obviously created." (p. 28)

The second quote is in the words of the biographer:

"The geographical inconsistencies of Helen's books...have been widely criticized....Helen's letters make it clear that far from being so ignorant as to confuse an African with an Indian she was able to distinguish between the racial groups within India.

"Why then did a person who was both well travelled and scholarly write a book which contains aspects of both Africa and India? The explanation is that she was writing, not for publication, but for her own daughters. She wanted to set her story somewhere far away and exotic; she chose an imaginary jungle-land and people it with what were to her daughters a far-away kind of people. To have made the setting India would have been too humdrum and familiar for them. Then, because she had a liking for terrifying tigers, she brought them in as the villains. She was far too good a naturalist not to be aware that tigers are found in India but not in Africa; no matter. Her jungle-land was an imaginary one, and tigers, which for her were symbolic dragons, were essential to the story." (p. 28-9)

Fairrosa wrote:

"This year we are seeing two newly adapted versions of LBS -- one retold by Julius Lester, set in Africa, and illustrated by Jerry Pinkney in large picture book format. The other slightly altered and illustrated by Fred Marcellino, smaller picture book format, set in India."

I have not seen the Marcellino book but please, please, please, the new telling Jerry and I have done is NOT, I repeat NOT SET IN AFRICA. This is important to us because before we undertook this project Jerry had talked to me about the absence of picture books of fantasy that featured black children. So when I began thinking about a new telling of LBS, I consciously set out to create a black fantasy. Thus, the first sentence of "Sam and the Tigers", the title of my new telling is, "Once upon a time there was a place called Sam-sam-sa-mara, where the animals and the people lived and worked together like they didn't know they weren't supposed to." If there is a place in Africa called Sam-sam-sa-ma-ra, I did not know of it.

The story has always been a fantasy, which should be obvious since tigers do not talk to little boys and ask for their clothes. It is no wonder that children have difficulty with fantasy if we adults are unable to recognize it. In "Sam and the Tigers" I have extended the fantasy by bringing in other animals as talking characters so there will be no question this time that it is a fantasy.

The second matter I want to address is the perennial one of racism.

Jim Maroon wrote:

"I have a copy. One of the first books I bought for my daughter. And I'm not about to part with it for any amount of money. :-)

Julius Lester's previous comments in another thread notwithstanding, there is nothing intrinsically racist about either the text or the illustrations. If exaggerated features were sufficient grounds for censorship, James Marshall and James Stevens and Dr. Seuss are all in BIG trouble. And if being written in a racist society is grounds for branding a book racist, then there is no such thing as a NON-racist book, especially in the USA."

Dick macgillivray wrote:

"I'd like to register my puzzlement over the alleged racism in LBS as well. I realize that as a privileged white middle class, middle-aged male I am at a distinct disadvantage in responding to the sensitivity markers in this story and its illustrations, but even so, I don't regard myself as unintelligent or unfeeling."

One of the reasons it is difficult for blacks and whites to talk about racism is that, more often than not, blacks shout "Racism" too readily and whites too readily deny its existence. The result is a painful lack of communication and understanding, mistrust and suspicion.

Part of the difficulty comes because the charge of racism carries with it the sentence of moral condemnation. No one wants to feel morally condemned. The charge of racism feels like an attack upon one's core, and when people are attacked they defend themselves. That is normal.

However, what if racism were merely a description of the attitude of racial superiority as exemplified in a given situation? In other words, what if racism were seen as something objective rather than as a subjective moral failing? I believe that this is how it is for many, many whites. Those who are rabid and malicious racists are not the norm and quite naturally, someone will resent being considered such simply because he or she likes LBS. For reasons too complex to go into here, many blacks do not make such distinctions and I wish they would. It would help create a better atmosphere that might help improve communications between the races.

If one sees racism as descriptive and situation-specific rather than moral and total, then we, blacks and whites, can acknowledge that the names of the characters and Bannerman's illustrations demean blacks. This is not because Bannerman was a rabid racist but because of the times in which the book was published and subsequent historical associations. Acknowledging the racism in LBS does not mean one must deny one's love for the book. Jerry and I both loved the story but not all elements of its presentation.

Margot Louis was correct when she wrote:

"I re-read Little Black Sambo recently (someone has put the original text on the Internet) and was slightly surprised to realize that the _story_ is not at all racist. What is racist is the association with very destructive stereotypes of blacks as greedy, and the repulsive images (these used to be widely available household items, used as piggy-banks, shoehorns, etc.) of blacks with immense grinning mouths, which often were actually called "Little Black Sambos"--a kind of commercial spin-off from the story, perhaps. The story itself is about a rather clever little boy with a healthy appetite and a good survival instinct. Changing the name of the hero would help a lot, and the rationale behind shifting the story to India would be to get away from the destructive associations which have been foisted upon the story, but which the tale, I think, really does not set out to exploit. Compare the degeneration of the figure of Uncle Tom, who starts out in Harriet Beecher Stowe's _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ as a very fine if to our tastes sickeningly pious) man, but who was represented in such a slavering, fawning, grinning way in the dramatizations of the work that he has become the symbol of a black who appeases the whites in a disgusting "Yes Massa" style."

When a black person says that something is racist and a white person responds by saying it is not, the message the black person receives is that the white person does not want to listen, that the white person is not taking the black person seriously. Blacks know racism because we suffer its conscious hurts. Whites are hurt by racism, too, but they do not feel it consciously. If whites are willing to respect blacks when they say there is "racism" in LBS, and seek to learn what it is blacks object to and why, then it will be easier for blacks to acknowledge that it is also a wonderful story.

Finally, I would like to share with you my dedication for "Sam and the Tigers":

"To the Internet and those on rec.arts.book.children and Child.Lit"

It was on r.a.b.c that I saw a post that said Jerry Pinkney was working on a new version of LBS. My first thought was that Jerry wouldn't dare do that without asking me to write it. I called him the next morning and he laughed and said he had been speaking somewhere and in response to a question mentioned off-handedly that there should be a new version but he wasn't working on it. I breathed a sigh of relief and said, "Well, how would you feel about our doing it?" It was also on r.a.b.c that I first participated in a lengthy thread on LBS and then about six months afterward a similar discussion took place here. Both discussions helped me clarify my thinking about the book, the issue of racism in it, and most importantly, why so many white people loved the book and why that was OK.

So, I can say in all honesty that "Sam and the Tigers" would not exist without the Internet and especially all of you on Child.Lit whose posts helped me think through a lot of the problems around the book and how to approach a new telling. The love many of you expressed for the book convinced me that the endeavor was worth undertaking.

2 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Woe! Stop right there, Julius. Where in my post did I deny the existance of racism? The part of my post you quote specifically stated that this is a racist society we live in today, which was an argument with your implication that because Bannerman lived in a racist society, then of course her book was racist. If that were true, then that would make your books racist, as well. It is just not a good argument in my view.

I also did not say there was no reason at all for blacks to get offended by this books or its illustrations. What I said was that the offensiveness is not intrinsic to the book intself, but rather extrinsic. The offensiveness of the name Sambo is not in the name itself. That was my white uncle Sam's nick-name, just as some occasionally call me Jimbo. Rather, my point was that it has since become offensive because of the way it has been used. The illustrations are exaggerations in extent and effect not much different from James Marshall's or James Stevensons, so the exaggeration is not what makes it racist, but rather how similar exaggerations have been used since to hurt and denigrate and humiliate. It wasn't hurtful from its inception, but it may have become hurtful based on such factors. And I see nothing about this book that even hints at inferiority of blacks to whites, so even your test fails here.

As to the notion that racism could ever be objective, I need to hear more about that. How various blacks react to this particular book might indicate that it is not. The African American parents who checked this book out of my library were not stupid people. They were educated and many of them professionals. They apparently did not see the racism you and others see, otherwise I'm sure they would not have checked it out for their children. I would be very interested to read your take on that. None of that denies your opinion. You live by your experiences and background, just as we all do. But it does call into question whether or not your opinion is as objective as you apparenly believe.. Of course, that's just my objective opinion. :-)

2 Jun 1996
Margot Louis

Jim Maroon seems to have misunderstood Julius Lester's suggestion that racism within a text or situation could be "seen as something objective rather than as a subjective moral failing" of the author or of the Bannerman fan. Lester was not claiming that his opinion was particularly "objective," but rather--as I understand him--that racism can inhere within a text, or a situation, without our instantly assuming that the perpetrator of the racist text is Adolf Hitler or Lyndon Larouche. Living in a racist society, for instance, I may say or do something racist out of ignorance rather than malice (though ignorance becomes less and less forgiveable as opportunities to remedy it multiply). If I act in a racist way, am I then racist? The answer surely is given by the way I react to being told that that particular act was racist; if I try to understand the issue and change my ways, then I am at least in struggle with racism. Lester's discussion seems to suggest that in that case I am not racist, though my act was; "condemn the fault and not the actor of it."

Jim Maroon seems to feel that if some blacks don't find LBS racist, then it's not; hurrah, we can enjoy it in its original form without worrying about the issue. I would suggest that the fact that many blacks do find LBS racist should be viewed by all, but especially by whites, not as an irritation but as a grief and a challenge to enlarge our sense of moral responsibility. Is it necessary that some children should be deeply hurt so that others can enjoy a ripping good story? I hardly think so. If many people say that they have been deeply hurt by "Little Black Sambo"--and many do--has anyone the right to say, "well, you shouldn't have been hurt," and ignore them? This issue provides us with an opportunity to look more deeply into racism, and looking more deeply is not a burden, but a valuable process of learning.

3 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

"Jim Maroon seems to feel that if some blacks don't find LBS racist, then it's not; hurrah, we can enjoy it in its original form without worrying about the issue."

Where on earth did you get that, Margot? You are building a straw man here. I said that an objective criterion is not possible with something as subjective as racism. Not only is it subjective, but what racism IS evolves over time. What is racist today was not necessarily racist 10 years ago, or what will be racist 10 years from now.

I also never said that because some blacks didn't think it racist, then Julius' opinion is therefore nullified. I accepted his opinion while at the same time recognizing that his opinion is not universal, even among blacks.

I further suggested that perhaps the reason why some find it to be racist has less to do with what it is and rather more to do with what it has come to mean or represent due to external factors that have little to do with the book itself.

"I would suggest that the fact that many blacks do find LBS racist should be viewed by all, but especially by whites, not as an irritation but as a grief and a challenge to enlarge our sense of moral responsibility. Is it necessary that some children should be deeply hurt so that others can enjoy a ripping good story? I hardly think so. "

I'm not irritated by the fact that people find it racist, Margot. I just happen to disagree with them. What I do find irritating is the fact that so many people want to deny other people access to it. As a librarian, I believe we should provided access to books our patrons want and need. Given Little Black Sambo's popularity, I think there is no question it is wanted and loved by many. If I went through my collection and pulled every book that could possibly hurt someone, I wouldn't have much left on my shelves.

"If many people say that they have been deeply hurt by "Little Black Sambo"--and many do--has anyone the right to say, "well, you shouldn't have been hurt," and ignore them?"

Again, you are reading things into this discussion that just aren't there. I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that people should not be hurt by this or any other book. I know I never said it. I think it would be a stupid thing to say. Because meaning is in the eye of the reader, that is where the hurt lies, as well. It is up to the reader to determine how they feel about a book, whether it be hurt or joy.

"This issue provides us with an opportunity to look more deeply into racism, and looking more deeply is not a burden, but a valuable process of learning."

I agree. I'm still intrigued by Julius' posts, and am looking forward to his responses to some of the points made since.

3 Jun 1996
Gunilla Janlert

I have been following the discussion about Little Black Sambo with great interest and I think it is an important issue. I am a Swedish school librarian and we do not have much of this discussion here is Sweden, yet I should perhaps add. I think it might be easier to discuss racism i this rather open form, despite of some people arguing that there is no racism in LSB.

It is far more difficult with the hidden racism that we find in books as well as in real life. What I, as an outsider, want to know is if there is the same consciousness about how e.g. Arabs are described, or if there is some sort of quiet understanding that racism against one group is=20 unacceptable but racism against others is more or less tolerable. If so,= why?

3 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

gunilla janlert wrote: "I think it might be easier to discuss racism in this rather open form, despite of some people arguing that there is no racism in LSB."

Hmmmm.... Despite? Are you saying it is a negative that some of us don't see racism in Little Black Sambo, and that because some us don't, that is somehow a flaw in the discussion? Are we supposed to all agree on what racism is? If we are all in agreement, how do we go about exploring all possible aspects of the issue? Personally, I think the very reason discussions are interesting is the diversity of opinion. The more diverse those opinions, the more interesting the discussion. I find the ones where everyone agrees tend to be quite boring, even if they agree with me.

Wendy E. Betts
3 Jun 1996

On Jun 3, 4:33pm, gunilla janlert wrote: "It is far more difficult with the hidden racism that we find in books "well as in real life. What I, as an outsider, want to know is if there is the same consciousness about how e.g. Arabs are described, or if there is= some sort of quiet understanding that racism against one group is unacceptable but racism against others is more or less tolerable. If so, why?"

That's an interesting question, particularly that particular example...I would say that there is less consciousness of racism against Arabs, which can be seen in how much less careful the media is about not being offensive towards them--but there's enough consciousness for those offenses to become apparent. Getting closer to home for our particular group, protests actually got lyrics changed in the video of the movie "Aladdin" because it was considered offensive. That's an interesting example for me, because my gut reaction is "that's so stupid and unnecessary" yet when I think about the obvious stereotyping of Arabs as violent and bloodthirsty I've merely *observed* (not lived) I can see why they'd want to stop any more.

4 Jun 1996
JANFERIE WESTWOOD

This thread is fascinating. It's amazing that one little book could raise all this heat two years running. Surely there must be other books which are a lot more racist than LBS. Why does it arouse such passion? I also think that Gunilla raised a very valid point! It really seems to me that racism against some groups is a lot more acceptable than others. For instance, the portrayal of Afrikaners as brutish sadists is quite acceptable.

Rani Raghavan
4 Jun 1996

Hello everyone!

I have been following the thread on the racism issue on LBS; I am confused: who is feeling the racism, the African-Americans or all the others? You see, I'm truly confused for one good reason (at least I think it is a good reason!):

I became a Children's Librarian in 1986; one month after I joined the Library, an old lady (African-American) came to me and asked for the book; she said she loved it so much as a youngster that she wanted to read it to her grand child! I remember it so well because I did NOT know anything about the book and was worried because I could not find a copy; my supervisor who was training me in the job told me that we did not carry the book because

1. it was out of print 2. it was considered a racist book

If the African-American stated that she loved it and wanted to read to her grand child, do you think she found it offensive? So who *is* finding it offensive?

Could someone please clear my confusion for me?

4 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Now THERE'S an objective, non-censorious selection criterion. :-)

As you hint, that should be up to your patrons to decide. I am troubled we librarians are so quick to make political and moral judgements that should be made by our clientele.

4 Jun 1996
Wilma I. Kuhlman

I, too, have been following the LBS thread with interest, finding many of my thoughts articulated by others. I do have some to add, and I hope I'm able to clarify rather than confuse.

I encourage those who continue to find it difficult to "see" any racism in LBS to see the video "Ethnic Notions." It is a 1987 piece produced by California Newsreel and you might be able to get it through interlibrary loan or from a Sociology or Human Relations department of a college near you. It might help to clarify the "context" that was referred to in the articulate explanation by Julius Lester in an earlier post. The carefree Sambo was a caricature of popular culture in the 19th and early 20th century that permeated media images of blacks. This caricature helped perpetuate an idea that black people were better off as slaves, that in fact, they were too ignorant and unfocused to know how to care for themselves. Perhaps the fantasy story of LBS did not specifically say that, but in light of other presentations, it also did not discourage that sterotype. These images have been burned into minds of both black and white Americans and might have more effect on all of us than we care to acknowledge. Whether these images have been effectively changed in media enough to make LBS innocuous fun is open for debate.

My other comment is to those who suggest that since several African American parents and grandparents enjoy LBS and are informed, educated people, we can assume no one "should" be offended. First of all racism is a much more complex issue than being offended and involves power and assumed superiority, not encompassed in being offended or not. But I encourage each of us to look critically at the suggestions of others and make informed decisions. I, for one, find many more excellent books with protagonists of different race and ethnicity to use, so I don't choose to share LBS as a matter of course with young children. It is worthy of discussion for adults, perhaps, as evidenced by this discussion. I'm also not a proponent of censorship under most conditions, so I don't suggest never making the book available. But my young students will not find LBS (the old version) on the shelf. I look forward to enjoying the fantasy in newer publications.

4 Jun

Hello,

I wanted to mention two other books besides Hay's _Sambo Sahib_ that I don't believe were noted yet. (If they were, sorry!) They are

_Little Black Sambo : A Closer Look - A History of Helen Bannerman's The Story of Little Black Sambo and its Popularity/Controversy in the United States_ by Phyllis J. Yuill

_Sambo : the Rise and Demise of An American Jester_ by Joseph Boskin

(the second title may only touch on the book itself but the first is very interesting, including an Appendix of the publishing history of _Little Black Sambo_ in the U.S. and in other languages and countries; and recommendations of the book in bibliographies of children's lit).

4 Jun 1996
Eleanor Wheeler

I have been waiting for someone to ask how many of the people who are part of this discussion have actually read LBS? I haven't seen a copy in a LONG time. For most of those on the list, it would have been out of print when they were children. I don't trust my memory, but I think I realized as a child that the events were clearly impossible. :-)

4 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Wilma I. Kuhlman wrote:

"you. It might help to clarify the "context" that was referred to in the articulate explanation by Julius Lester in an earlier post. The carefree Sambo was a caricature of popular culture in the 19th and early 20th century that permeated media images of blacks. This caricature helped perpetuate an idea that black people were better off as slaves, that in fact, they were too ignorant and unfocused to know how to care for themselves. Perhaps the fantasy story of LBS did not specifically say that, but in light of other presentations, it also did not discourage that sterotype."

But that was my point. That which is offensive and bothersome and racist is external to the story itself. Indeed, the notion of "context" implies extrinsic factors, does it not? There is nothing in the book that implies inferiority or remotely hints at what you suggest in the above. As a matter of fact, Sambo is a very brave and resourceful little boy. Even Julius agrees with that. That's why he is rewriting it, and I'll bet you his version won't be all that much different from the original (talking about story here... Pinkney as an illustrator compared to Bannerman's crude cartoons?). I remember only admiration for Sambo as a child as my teacher read it to me, and I identified with him a great deal. To me, he was another child much like me, except smarter. If anything, I admired my African American classmates because they were more like him than I was.

"My other comment is to those who suggest that since several African American parents and grandparents enjoy LBS and are informed, educated people, we can assume no one "should" be offended. First of all racism is"

More straw men. Nobody said that. By placing it in quotes, you are suggested someone did. I said they were not offended, and rather than say others should not be offended, there is an implication from some here that they should have been, and that I should be. I accept that others are offended, and they have reason to be. And that they have reason to consider it racist. It just happens that I disagree with them, as did these parents. That does not make anyone wrong. My suggestion was and is that racism and offensiveness are in the eye of the beholder. It is a highly subjective issue. It would be wrong for me to deny others their feelings about it, just as it would be wrong for others to deny me mine.

4 Jun 1996
Bonita Kale

Reply to message from jmaroon@airmail.net of Tue, 04 Jun

"I accept that others are offended, and they have reason to be. And that they have reason to consider it racist. It just happens that I disagree with them, as did these parents. That does not make anyone wrong. My suggestion was and is that racism and offensiveness are in the eye of the beholder. It is a highly subjective issue. It would be wrong for me to deny others their feelings about it, just as it would be wrong for others to deny me mine."

I dunno--isn't that a little like saying if you see a bird in the tree, and I don't, that we're both equally right? That I don't see the bird doesn't make it nonexistent.

That I'm not offended by LBS doesn't mean that there is not something in the book which is offensive to some people. It might mean I'm insensitive, or very tolerant, or that the parts of the book I love outweigh the others for me.

4 Jun 1996
Bonita Kale

Racism against blacks has been long-lived, deep, and very horrible in the US. Slavery was our Holocaust.

I think we need to be more sensitive to that kind of racism than to other kinds, because

a. It's our own particular sin, as anti-Semitism is Germany's.

b. It's still very much alive and active, causing daily harm to many Americans. Many white Americans have a sort of hierarchy of hatred, with black people despised more than others.

04 Jun 1996
Tasha Saecker

Well, I really was going to stay out of this, since others had been voicing my opinion in much more articulate terms. However, simply because a single patron views a book in a certain way, does not mean that other patrons will look at it in the same way. So, African Americans have a variety of responses and opinions, just as I as a feminist respond to sexist material in a different way than other women who may not view the world from the same perspective.

Let's respect people for being offended or concerned about racism. We should not be so eager to say that this person was not offended so no one should be.

All right, I feel better now. Let the flames keep me warm!

4 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

saecker wrote:

"Let's respect people for being offended or concerned about racism. We should not be so eager to say that this person was not offended so no one should be."

I agree. But has anyone said that?

4 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

A better analogy, Bonita, would be if you and I both saw the bird, but I thought it beautiful and you did not. The bird would be a thing. As a physical entity, it either exists or it doesn't, regardless what one or the other of us saw or believed. Whether or not it was beautiful would be a matter of opinion, and we are talking about opinions here, are we not?

"That I'm not offended by LBS doesn't mean that there is not something in the book which is offensive to some people. It might mean I'm insensitive, or very tolerant, or that the parts of the book I love outweigh the others for me."

Good point. Could be. Or it could be you are looking at the issue from different life experiences and a different life view than I, which I think is probably the case here.

Wendy E. Betts
4 Jun 1996

I recently read a wonderful book called _Colored People_, about growing up black in a small town in the fifties. Two points about it that really struck me were the author's description of how captivated they were by seeing *any* black persion on t.v. (This also came up in a similar book, _Coffee Will Make You Black_) and his description of a doll he had, a black doll with huge red lips and other stereotypical features. But he never thought it was *racist*, he only thought it was *strange*.

Obviously the consciousness of racism is something that has changed a lot for black people over the years, as well as for white people. In a time when *any* representation of someone black was welcomed, LBS may have been a lot more popular with black readers. And perhaps children, at least, were once more innocent about stereotypes and racism. Perhaps they could be again, though I really don't know if that would be a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. My point is that we can't expect all people, just because they share the same race, the have the exact same feelings on an issue. One black person loving LBS doesn't make it non-racist, anymore than one black person being offended by it does. However, you can make a reasoned case for it being racist; I think that's what Julius Lester has done, and that may be what he was aiming for with his use of the term "objective."

I don't know how Lester feels about the issue of whether LBS should be available in libraries; if he's commented on it, I haven't noticed. But I've read his remarks as merely asking that people take an objective look at the argument that LBS is racist. Simply replying "but some black people love it" totally disregards the points he has made.

Waller Hastings, Waller
4 Jun 96

Eleanor Wheeler asks: "I have been waiting for someone to ask how many of the people who are part of this discussion have actually read LBS? I haven't seen a copy in a LONG time. For most of those on the list, it would have been out of print when they were children. I don't trust my memory, but I think I realized as a child that the events were clearly impossible. :-)"

I suppose it depends on how old one pictures the membership of the list - and also where they are from (LBS could, for instance, have remained in print in Britain or Australia but not in the U.S., or vice versa). I am 44, and I remember reading it as a child in an edition with full-color pictures. It could have been an American or a Canadian edition, since my family comes from both countries. But many books are out of print and still read by lots of children - that is the virtue of the library.

What intrigues me about the LBS discussion is the great affection so many people feel for this book. Obviously, it has staying power, since I can remember some of the pictures of my edition even now, surely more than 30 years since I read it. But I really don't remember the *story* in any great detail - I remember the tigers chasing each other around the tree and turning into butter, but until prompted by this discussion I had forgotten all about the clothes.

But I never thought of LBS as one of the great works of children's literature, as obviously some people do. I know it's difficult to articulate matters of taste, but rather than trot out the First Amendment or the nice black families that want their children to read the book at the first hint that some people may have difficulty with a racial subtext, or the equally self-righteous charge of racism because of the stereotypes embodied in the text, could someone try to explain just *why* this book produces such powerful reactions in adult readers? It is after all not the only book from its time that uses racial stereotypes, and many of the others have passed into unlamented obscurity without anyone claiming that they have been censored. I am willing to defend the book's continued presence on library shelves regardless of quality - freedom of expression doesn't exist only for well-written or well-stated expression - but it would be nice to look at the book for its other qualities. These are presumably the qualities that have led to two new "updated" versions coming out.

kari august
4 Jun 1996

"I have been waiting for someone to ask how many of the people who are part of this discussion have actually read LBS? I haven't seen a copy in a LONG time."

I was recently asked by a fellow student teacher to read some of the poetry of my childhood to his class. I got out my Better Homes and Gardens STORY BOOK published in 1950 and received for my second Christmas. Among Kipling's The Elephant's Child, and Potter's Tales of Peter Rabbit is The Story of LBS. I remember the story well from my childhood and like others, I remember it fondly, envying LBS the beautiful red coat his mother made him, his "lovely... Purple Shoes with with Crimson Soles and Crimson Linings," and especially his quick thinking in the face of danger.

For me, as a child growing up in an all-white school, it was a tribute to a caring, dark-skinned family which (wonder of wonders) served "lovely pancakes" with melted butter for dinner. Yet, I did not read the tale to this classroom of ethnically diverse third graders; something didn't seem quite right.

I look forward to the retelling of LBS by Messers Lester and Pinkney--I'm quite confident my students and I will love it!

4 Jun 1996
Karla Walters

Several people have claimed that LBS is out of print. It is not, and has not been out of print. check Books in Print and see how many editions are available. What it has not been, is available in libraries, not even university collections of children's books. At the University of New Mexico Library one can read it it French, and one can read ABOUT LBS in Phyllis Yuill's book, already refered to in an earlier posting. I have been amazed that one could not show a copy of LBS to university students, even if if one wished to, in order to discuss the controversy surrounding this title for the past 40+ years.

4 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Wendy E. Betts wrote:

"an issue. One black person loving LBS doesn't make it non-racist, anymore than one black person being offended by it does. However, you can make a reasoned case for it being racist; I think that's what Julius Lester has done, and that may be what he was aiming for with his use of the term "objective.""

I agree he was aiming for that, but then he made one subjective argument against it after another, which would tend to validate my point that you can't be objective about something as subjective as racism.

5 Jun 1996
Carolynne Lathrop

I disagreed with Jim about the illustrations. They exaggerate the characteristics that are identified with black people--the lips, smile, color of skin, Mambo's figure, etc. James Marshall drew everybody the same--pin point eyes, line mouth, wide stocky build, etc. There is no attempt that I can remember, at least, to distinguish different races or ethnic groups by different features. Would these illustrations be acceptable in a story written today? Kevin Visits the Jungle, for instance? I don't think so! If you compare LBS to Bannerman's Little White Quibba, who is very attractively drawn, the difference becomes much more obvious. I remember my son at age four, being frightened by Sambo's grin, when he was supposed to be happy. Sambo, I mean, not my son--though I suppose I expected Nathaniel to be happy also. I think it is a great story, too, and really has become almost folklore. In fact, I first heard the story orally, along with Epaminondas,from my father, who is from Alabama. Like most Alabamans of his time, he was somewhat racist, and that may have altered his view of those stories. I still feel uncomfortable about this, although I was not aware of any racism as a child. And I don't remember attaching any negative associations to the protagonists' being black: they just were. Just as Peter was a rabbit and Ferdinand was a bull and Raggedy Ann was a doll. Now I think Epaminondas probably is racist, though I have seen it illustrated with a white protagonist. I don't know: does that make it okay? Or is it still racist? Are the Silly Jack stories from England racist?

I always felt I could never tell Epaminondas and Little Black Sambo as effectively as my Dad could, with his drawl. I did not see the Bannerman version until I bought it as an adult (from an English bookshop). I wish now I had bought the others in the series, as they will probably never again be available! There is a little pamphlet about Racism in LBS which I got from ILL a couple of years ago. I found it very illuminating. Unfortunately I can no longer remember the title or author. Most of it dealt with the illustrations, as I recall. Don't hesitate to write more. I always enjoy your posts.

5 Jun 1996
fairrosa

Bonita Kale wrote:

"Racism against blacks has been long-lived, deep, and very horrible in the US. Slavery was our Holocaust. ....."

Bonita -- when you say OUR OWN, you mean US Americans? (who are the Americans -- a generic face or a mixture of all races from all places and taking roots here in various time periods?) Us Whites? (should the ones whose ancesters might have owned slaves feel guiltier than the rest of the White population?)

I understand the significance and the deep influence on our society here in the United States of slavery and racism and don't tend to diminish either the historical importance or the social relevance of these issues. However, one thing that might contribute to the perpectuating of hate is that we (either side) don't let go, that we regard it as a SIN that has to be somehow Avenged or Paid back. In order to reach peaceful co-existence, the first step has to be to recognize that there shouldn't be the necessity of "co-existence" -- that we should stand on the equal ground and not view one as being above, or under another.

I'm not suggesting to forget or blindfold ourselves and simply ignore the racial tensions but to make it a collective sin just does not sound right.

5 Jun 1996
Wilma I. Kuhlman

I concede that no one explicitly said no one should be offended if some were not. I'll not pursue that. But I have an objection to one statement in the previous paragraph. You state that racism (and offensiveness) are in the eye of the beholder. I argue that racism is much more than in the eye of the beholder and subjective. We have entire policies that were/are based on racism. Would you suggest that separate seating on a bus and separate water fountains of the past were only racist if one felt it was racist? How about the actions of a white person when an African American enters the same elevator, and the white person reaches to protects his/her wallet? Is that only racist if the people believe it to be so? I would argue that there are many actions of covert and overt racism that are ignored by people of color that are indeed racism in action. I don't believe I've noticed anyone asking you to deny your feelings, but please don't define racism as only in the eyes of the beholder. It takes all responsibility away from the privileged and blames the victim.

5 Jun 1996
Bonita Kale

(quote from fairrosa snipped -- f-r.)

Well, actually, I believe in collective guilt, kind of. I believe in patriotism and pride in one's country, so why not shame when one's country acts badly? Or did act badly?

And, who? "Us white Americans," I guess.

I'm not sure, though. I'm white, and I certainly think of ML King as somone I can be proud of--he was an American, after all.

"I understand the significance and the deep influence on our society here in the United States of slavery and racism and don't tend to diminish either the historical importance or the social relevance of these issues. However, one thing that might contribute to the perpectuating of hate is that we (either side) don't let go, that we regard it as a SIN that has to be somehow Avenged or Paid back. "

I think it is a SIN. But sins are not to be avenged, but to be forgiven.

"In order to reach peaceful co-existence, the first step has to be to recognize that there shouldn't be the necessity of "co-existence" -- that we should stand on the equal ground and not view one as being above, or under another.

I'm not suggesting to forget or blindfold ourselves and simply ignore the racial tensions but to make it a collective sin just does not sound right."

You sound like my father-in-law. But he was a dear.

MNevett
5 Jun 1996

I suspect that one of the reasons many of us had positive feelings about LBS was not only the power of the story, but that there were not as many wonderful picture books available in the past as there are now- so anyone growing up as a child before the early 60's did not have as much to choose from. I remember the "warm fuzzy " type feelings evoked by sharing this book with my parents.( what is the Wordsworth quote about recollections in tranquillity?) I also remember the guilty feelings evoked in the early 70's when articles were being written about the inherent racism. The public library I worked in at the time solved the dilemma by placing the book in the Historical Collection, which was still accessible to patrons, but clearly marked as historical. I do think that children will respond positively to the newer versions, the concept of the child outwitting the tigers until they turn into butter for him to eat will certainly hit the same unconscious nerve that Max taming the wild things does- empowerment of the small child in a world where most things careen out of his/her control.

Stephen P. Marek
5 Jun 1996

"Racism against blacks has been long-lived, deep, and very horrible in the US. Slavery was our Holocaust. "

I agree with the first sentence. Let's keep clearly in mind,however, that the word "Holocaust" with a capital H refers solely to the destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis. This is one word in the English language that we must not devalue or trivialize.

"I think we need to be more sensitive to that kind of racism than to other kinds, because"

Your suggestion here is morally indefensible, in my opinion. All racism is equally evil-there's no sliding scale here.

"a. It's our own particular sin, as anti-Semitism is Germany's. "

Just plain silly.Racism is no more unique to American society than anti-Semitism is to Germany.

"b. It's still very much alive and active, causing daily harm to many Americans. Many white Americans have a sort of hierarchy of hatred, with black people despised more than others. "

I agree with your first sentence. Do you have a shred of objective documentation to support your rather unpleasant generalization in the second?

5 Jun 96
Julius Lester/Jim Maroon

This is a forward of a message that was accidentally sent privately to me when it was meant to go to list. I forward it with permission.

--Jim Maroon

When I began drafting my thoughts on Little Black Sambo, I was hesitant about using people's names when I quoted them and thought about quoting from various posts but without attribution. So, having gone against my instinct, let me begin by apologizing to Jim Maroon if he felt attacked in anyway by my taking issue with him.

Having said that I am not sure where to go with this. Jim Maroon maintains that I misrepresented him and the quote above from him certainly does not represent an understanding of what I wrote. I was merely trying to place Bannerman - and all of us - in historical context. Historical contexts change. The illustrations in Little Black Sambo were acceptable to white people in 1899. Those same illustrations are not acceptable to a significant number of white people in 1996. From the context of many whites and blacks those illustrations ridicule blacks and that is not acceptable to those people. To others, blacks and whites, those illustrations are acceptable. I do not understand how that can be and it hurts me that there are still people, black and white, who are not also hurt.

Given that the history of the book is generations of whites maintaining that "the offensiveness is not intrinsic to the book itself," I would hope that when generations of whites and blacks began saying, "These illustrations are offensive," those holding the more traditional view would stop and listen.

You are wrong when you say the "offensiveness of the name Sambo is not in the name itself." No one likes to be told they're wrong and I do not do so rhetorically. But I feel I must meet your absolutism with absolutism. I quote from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Vol. XIV, p. 426:

"sambo - applied in America and Asia to persoHns of varius degrees of mixed Negro and Indian or European blood; also, a name for a kind of yellow monkey.

2. (With capital S.) A nickname for a Negro. Now used only as a term of abuse., esp. with reference to the appearance or subservient mentality held to be typical of the black American slave."

The OED traces the use of the word with a capital S from 1704 and by 1781 - 118 years before LBS is published, Sambo is used "as a term of abuse."

That your uncle was named Sambo does not mean the same thing because your uncle was white. Obviously it did not hurt your uncle to be called Sambo. The word when addressed to or said of blacks was intended to demean and abuse, as the definition makes clear.

You see nothing about LBS that "even hints at inferiority of blacks to whites." And you seem like you don't want to at least open the door a crack to the possibility that the fault lies in your seeing, not mine. I'm truly sorry you don't see the racism in the book, that you don't see how the images shaped the images of blacks in the minds of whites for generations and generations. And I'm sorry you don't see that, despite this, I defend your love of the book, a love I do not share.

As for your observation that black parents check the book out of your library, I suppose I have two responses: One, you assume you know why they checked it out and your assumption is that they did not see racism in it. I do not know the basis of that assumption and therefore cannot put any significance on it. Second, assuming that you are correct, who said all blacks agreed on anything? And even if they disagree with me, does this ipso facto make them right and me wrong?

Enough.

I have written directly and frankly but I sincerely hope that it is clear that I have done so without personal animus. If anything I said or if my phrasing of something hurt you in anyway, Jim, I apologize.

Someone wrote once: "Feelings are everywhere. Be gentle."

I try.

5 Jun 1996
Marty Johnson

Sandra Wilde Wrote: "I don't remember reading LBS as a child, but I had a book of stories called "Little Brown Koko." I came across it in a used bookstore as an adult and was appalled; the pictures were exaggerated and stereotypical, one story revolved around stealing watermelon, etc. I know that this had to have impacted me as a child, growing up around very few African Americans (until I got to junior high) and with parents who were pretty prejudiced as well."

Wow! I must have grown up naive. I read LBS over and over in our little two room school in Northern North Dakota and the only thing that I ever wondered about was how in the world those tigers could be reduced to butter by going round and round. It just didn't make sense to me. The boy's race had little to do with it. And my parents were pretty typical WASPs with similar attitudes at that time (1948).

6 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Just to make it clear, Little Brown Cocco (Koko?) is not Little Black Sambo. I have heard of it, but I believe in the context of it being a rip-off and offensive. Having never read it or even seen it, I can't comment and will take Sandra's words at face value. I will instead continue to discuss LBS, a book I HAVE read.

As to making sense, there is a great deal of fantasy that doesn't, at least in a concrete-operational sort of way. But that is one of the fun things about how children look at things, isn't it?
6 Jun 1996
Ellen Kaplan Goffin

It seems to me that because racism is so ingrained in our society, so systemic, a child reading LBS in 1948 who lived in a mainly white area with parents who were "pretty typical WASPs" would NOT be consciously aware of the racism in it. That is the POINT! Racism, the belief in the inferiority of blacks and the discrimination against blacks, was the acceptable (to many) norm in 1948. Now, in 1996, we are more aware of racism and other injustices committed against a group of people and we (generalization here) find it unacceptable.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone who read the book in the 40s and did not NOTICE the racism was ignorant or should not have been allowed the pleasure of reading the book. We are all a product of our times and the environment in which we grew up and in which we currently live. I just want to point out that just because someone did not consciously note the racism that does not mean it isn't there or that the book doesn't deserve another look (as we are now doing) with a more critical eye.

6 Jun 1996
Bonita Kale

Reply to message from smarek of Wed, 05 Jun

"Let's keep clearly in mind,however, that the word "Holocaust" with a capital H refers solely to the destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis. This is one word in the English language that we must not devalue or trivialize."

Probably this isn't the time or place (in fact, probably there is no proper time or place) to argue whether it's worse to enslave a people or to exterminate them. But it certainly doesn't -trivialize- the word to use it the way I did.

And I think slavery, especially the particularly vicious kind of slavery we had, is something we will have to be ashamed of for a long, long time, as the Holocaust is for Germany.

"Just plain silly.Racism is no more unique to American society than anti-Semitism is to Germany."

Not unique; I didn't mean to imply that it was. But it's our besetting sin. And we certainly codified the idea of race very tidily.

"I agree with your first sentence. Do you have a shred of objective documentation to support your rather unpleasant generalization in the second? "

Perhaps you associate mostly with educated people, Stephen, as I notice you post from Northwestern U. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone would doubt the sentence to which you object. No, I have not a shred of objective documentation, only years of living with people. But it's true.

6 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Wilma I. Kuhlman wrote:

"Jim:

Preface: I recognize this takes us beyond LBS, but I can't let this lie. Since I'm leaving for a week, I promise not to linger on the topic.

I concede that no one explicitly said no one should be offended if some were not. I'll not pursue that. But I have an objection to one statement in the previous paragraph. You state that racism (and offensiveness) are in the eye of the beholder. I argue that racism is much more than in the eye of the beholder and subjective. We have entire policies that were/are based on racism. Would you suggest that separate seating on a bus and separate water fountains of the past were only racist if one felt it was racist? How about the actions of a white person when an African American enters the same elevator, and the white person reaches to protects his/her wallet? Is that only racist if the people believe it to be so? I would argue that there are many actions of covert and overt racism that are ignored by people of color that are indeed racism in action. I don't believe I've noticed anyone asking you to deny your feelings, but please don't define racism as only in the eyes of the beholder. It takes all responsibility away from the privileged and blames the victim." Wow.

I quote your entire post because you make so many excellent points. Yes, I see what you mean, and if this was what Julius was trying to say when he suggested there can be objective criteria to define racism, then to a great extent, I can agree with that as well. I would probably say that I disagree with your last statement, since one can be racist against the privileged. But your point is taken. There are many things that only a fool would not think was racist, and that has probably changed over the years as well. The firebombing of churches, lynchings, putting people in the back of the bus, all the separate but "equal" crap, and many, many more that are less blatant but equally universally conidered racist because they are acts or beliefs based on the hatred of a racial group. I would be interested in you or others elaborating.

Can we agree, however, that there are some gray areas? Whether you agree with me about LBS or not, can we not say that reasonable, sensitive, intelligent people can disagree as to whether or not certain things are racist? And is it always to be defined only by the offended? I can't recall the poll numbers, but a sizable number of white Americans believe affirmative action to be racist. Does that make it so? I certainly disagree with that. Does it mean minorities must accept that definition?

Also, we are talking about symbols and meanings here, not actions or actualities. We are talking about how we react to these symbols and their contexts. In that sense, there IS room for opinion, considering the range of reactions to literature of all sorts, not just that which is called into question. But even among the latter, there is a great deal of room for disagreement. How about Huck Finn? A number of people, white and black, believe it to be racist. Does that make it so? Julius Lester in an earlier post said he likes the story of LBS, and does so sufficiently that he thinks it can be fixed. Well, I can tell you I have met a number of African Americans who would think he was wrong about that. Does that make him "ipso facto wrong"? Or could it just be that in their eyes it is hopelessly racist, and in his a few deletions and touch-ups would be enough to extract a good story from its racist framework? Is there room for disagreement there? Like it or not, racism IS in the eye of the beholder, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. In the sense it is a political and sociological entity, it must be.

6 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

(quote snipped -- f-r.) No apology necessary. I didn't feel attacked. You were addressing my post, and so I addressed your response. I am of the firm opinion that people can disagree passionately and in the end (even in the process) still hold respect for one another.

(quote snipped -- f-r.)

Surely we are not going to play a numbers game here. If we did, my hunch would be that the vast majority of whites in this country would not only find that the illustrations in this book do not ridicule blacks, they would say they enjoyed the book. And while more blacks would probably find it offensive than not, it would be by no means all. And that is not to say that makes me more right than you. It is just to suggest numbers are irrelevant, then or now.

(quote anipped -- f-r.)

Because they don't share your context, Julius. Besides, in an earlier post, didn't you say...

"Please don't worry about 'not wanting to hurt my feelings.' I am an adult and hold no one responsible for my feelings except myself."

So now we are responsible for your hurt feelings simply because we do not share your views on this? I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere between there and here.

But then, that's not hard. I spend much of my time trying to figure out where I am.

6 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Julius Lester wrote:

"As for your observation that black parents check the book out of your library, I suppose I have two responses: One, you assume you know why they checked it out and your assumption is that they did not see racism in it."

Because I knew a number of them, Julius. If something bothered them about the book, they would have told me. One mother even thanked me for carrying it, since she had loved it since childhood. In a number of cases, the children clutched the books, themselves, as they walked out the door. A parent that is concerned about the effect a book will have on a child will not do that, generally, with a small child if they feel that book may be harmful to them. If they were using it to make some educational point, they would have held the book until they had a chance to read it to the child and explain their perspective.

"I do not know the basis of that assumption and therefore cannot put any significance on it. Second, assuming that you are correct, who said all blacks agreed on anything? And even if they disagree with me, does this ipso facto make them right and me wrong?"

No, it doesn't make you wrong. It means you see it differently, that's all. Why do they have to be right and you wrong? Or vice versa? They see it from their perspective, you see it from yours, and I from mine. The only thing that bothers me about your arguments is that it seems as though all must share your perspective, and if they don't, you are hurt by it.

6 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

I have stopped and listened, and as I have said a number of times in this thread, I understand why people are offended by it. I think rather it is you who are having the difficult time understanding why I and others love it.

Every argument you have made is an extrinsic one. You point out historical context as a proof of your argument. Well, that context is equally proof of my argument, because that context is OUTSIDE OF THE BOOK. If you took a child (which was my case when I was introduced to it), black or white, with no knowledge of all the background you describe, and read them this book and showed them the illustrations, and they had never seen the purposely hurtful portrayal of blacks in old films and books, or ever heard the term Sambo before, I am convinced they would NOT find this book offensive or hurtful. In that context, or rather lack of context, the illustrations are no more hurtful than James Marshall's. It is not malicious in any way. If seen innocently, it is a completely innocent book. As someone in the thread suggested, as a white, she had to be told why she SHOULD find it offensive before she did. And then she did.

I know, I know. Context is important. It is what gives a story and its illustrations meaning and shades of meaning. But isn't that my point? That from various contexts, reasonable people can see the story differently? That because one sees it from one context and another from another, we get different meaning and the book has different effects on us? That is why you are offended by it, and I am not. That's what I am arguing here, at any rate, however lamely.

I would further point out, Julius, that while you personally do not find the story, sans names etc., offensive, I have met some people who do. So, if they heard you argue your points, they would wonder why YOU do not find it offensive, why you are rewriting it, and may feel you are the one who lacks proper context and perspective. Hell, they might even be "hurt" to know you aren't offended by it. :-)

Further, I will BET you that your Sam and the Tigers will make it onto the ALAOIF list of challenged books, because someone, somewhere is going to take offense. I look forward to your thoughts on all of this then.

6 Jun 1996
Thomas B Smith

Well, here I go, into the fray! Jim makes some awfully good points, as usual, and I even agree that there are "gray" areas wherein racism exists primarily as a subjective experience. HOWEVER...

I really thought that Julius nailed it, in the message Jim forwarded to us, when he provided objective, concrete, dictionary-referenced input to the effect that "sambo" was known to be an insulting, pejorative, racist term for a hundred years before the book was written. As far as I'm concerned, that settles it.

Years and years ago, when Women's Liberation was still called that, Ms. Magazine came up with a consciousness-raising tool which I always found to be very thought-provoking. They suggested, for those of you who aren't into ancient history, that one could gain enlightenment regarding what women were objecting to in the culture by substituting the word "black" for "woman" in some of the more hateful phrases then in common use.

Try this trick with "Little Black Sambo." Would you recommend a book to your patrons that was called, "Little Yellow Chink?" (Oh, it hurts to actually type that out -- but I hope you see my point.) If Julius is right about the history of the word "sambo," that is exactly what Bannerman was doing when she named her book. And that's pretty awful, no matter how cute the story is.

All of which begs the larger question, of course: What are the responsibilities of a LIBRARIAN regarding a book entitled "Little Yellow Chink," or "Little Black Sambo?"

What do you think, Jim?

6 Jun 1996
Elizabeth H Wiley

This exchange demonstrates how diffent perspectives are, and that to be respectful to original sources is essential. The voices of those who witnessed become ever more important to reach truth. There is no necessity to determine who is most violated, Holocaust victims or those subjected to slavery in the United States. The writer was just trying to use the most horrific example to recognize the seriousness of the uniquely racial and long enduring degration of specific racial slavery in this country. That slavery has been hideously long living in its impact because of the 100 years of apartheid that followed. The pervasiveness of that apartheid had to be experienced to really be believed. The book's racism is obvious to any who experienced the completeness of Anglo racism in its era. Julius Lester's voice is clear and accurate.

6 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

"Ah! It's in the dictionary! Must be true."

I find it wonderfully ironic that we are trotting out as if it were the end-all of concrete objectivity a tool which the late great Malcolm X used to show just how SUBjective language is. He loved to use dictionary definitions to illustrate the absurdity of the notion of objective language use and its hidden effect on how we view people of color.

Wanting to check out the reference myself, I rushed over to our copy of the OED to see if I could find it. Unfortunately, I was unable to, because our copy is not the 2nd edition, but rather the first. There is no reference whatsoever to prejoritive or offensive or abuse or anything similar used to describe the etymology of the term "sambo". I pondered how that could be. Could it be they historically found no reference to the use of sambo as a derogatory term before publishing the 2nd edition, thus allowing for the possibility there were both derogatory and.... er, rogatory uses of the term? Or could it be that in the first edition the editors saw all the evidence and made a subjective decision that it was not used as a term of abuse, and in the second edition looked at the same evidence and made a subjective decision that it was?

In either case, there is apparently still sufficient room for interpretation that it may or may not have been. Someone, somewhere made a subjective determination. We are talking about context outside of the book to prove our case and this is insufficiently objective evidence, especially since that bastion of objectivity, the Oxford English Dictionary, even has trouble reaching an objective conclusion. I would therefore suggest we look at the character in the book. What about him would indicate to us that Bannerman meant to ridicule him or use him as a device of abuse or ridicule? Is he a fool? An idiot? A step-and-fetchit? A Tom? I certainly don't see it. So I would suggest that Bannerman did NOT use the name in the context of racist degradation, at least not in this book. If she purposely used a racist term, she would treat the character in a racist fashion, and there is just no evidence for that IN THE BOOK. So, I stand by my position that this book is not objectively intrinsically racist. You need to extrapolate using exterior subjective data to make a case for a determination of racism.

How's that for some wiggle action? :-)

"All of which begs the larger question, of course: What are the responsibilities of a LIBRARIAN regarding a book entitled "Little Yellow Chink," or "Little Black Sambo?"

What do you think, Jim?"

First, I reject part of the premise of your question because of my objective (:-) arguments above. I don't believe Bannerman meant the term in a derogatory way.

But even given that, to answer your question as directly as I can... if the book fits within my library's stated purpose for existance, has a sufficient popularity to ensure its demand, and is a classic of children's literature, I should stock it on my library shelves no matter how I felt about it. We carry The Secret Garden and I personally consider that sexist trash.

What would you do?

6 Jun 1996
John D. Fisher

Good for you, Marty! I was pretty much in the same boat, but I wondered if the butter was orange, like the tigers' fur, and where did the black (from their stripes) go?

BTW, my wife, an only child, had parents who kept EVERYTHING--including her copy of the Little Golden Book version of Little Black Sambo. My kids, who pick out books at random, have only chosen it once, and that was years ago when they were both too young to attack words for meaning (4 and 2, I believe--I remember I was the one who had to read it to them).

7 Jun 1996
Stephen P. Marek

I believe that there is a misunderstanding about what I am saying here. I am not trying to make invidious and pointless comparisons between the Holocaust and African slavery. What I was trying to show is that language is important, that it matters, and that we should try to use it with accuracy. I believe that language should matter to anyone who cares about literature - children's or otherwise, and also to anyone who is a librarian.

I will stand by my original definition of the Holocaust: when the word is capitalized it refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans through a policy of genocide by the Nazis. Each and every time that we extend this definition of the Holocaust to other examples of misery and destruction we almost imperceptibly begin to marginalize and devalue both the word and the reality that it represents. Does this matter? Yes. I think it does. If you doubt it, take a careful look at how this word is used, both within and out of context, in the speeches and writings of anti-Semites like Leonard Jeffries at NYU or Louis Farrakhan.

On the same topic of accuracy in our use of words and language, the Jim Crow laws that sprang up in the United States after the end of the Civil War resulted in widespread segregation and discrimination, but using the Afrikaans word "apartheid" to describe this seems to mix up very different situations in South Africa and the United States.

7 Jun 1996
Elizabeth H Wiley

I think there is no reason not to recognize the situtation in the U. S. South for those years as apartheid. Only someone who did not experience it could think otherwise.

7 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Elizabeth H Wiley wrote:

"I think you are wrong. I think Lester is right. "

No I'm not. We're both right. I am right from my perspective. He is right from his perspective. Except where he said I was wrong, and in that case, he is wrong. Although I could be wrong about that, and there he would be right. Of course, I could be wrong there, as well, which would then make us both wrong. And we both think you are wrong but then doesn't everybody?

Black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong. True or false. Racist or not. I love it when there are only two choices. Then, I at least have a fifty-fifty chance. :-)

"I am 57 years old, and knew the time and lived it."

You no more share Bannerman's context and perspective than a child born today shares mine. I was born 7 years after the end of WWII, and yet I have no idea whatsoever what life was like during that period.

"Bannerman was racist in the illustrations from HER perspective"

Based on what? Did she say that? Or are you extrapolating based on exterior factors?

"and in the use of the "My wasn't Little Black Sambo grand!" line about the clothes, "

I am so glad you said that, because you prove my point conclusively that we all judge racism based on our own subjective perspective. I'll bet if I inserted another name into that sentence and showed it to a thousand people, black or white, and asked them for their thoughts about it without any prompting on my part one way or another, not a single one of them would say it was a racist statement, even if I told them it was describing a child's clothes. In fact, after all the complaints I have heard about this book (and considering I have been debating this issue off and on for over three years on 5 different lists, I thought I'd heard 'em all), this is the very first time I have heard this one. But, hey, who am I to say you're wrong? :-)

"and in the names she selected to use."

Possible, but debatable, as I have proven.

"I found the story very clever and pleasant to use in story telling and with my own children in the 60s before sharp awareness of what was going on around me set in.

And that further proves my point, which is that based on the book alone, without the extrinsic factors, there is nothing racist about this book. Thank you.

Speaking of storytelling, I'm inspired. Based on this discussion, I have decided to use this story in my storytimes next week. Given there are over 300 people who attend them per week, that should be a decent size sample to test your theory about the clothes. I'll let you know how it goes. Provided, of course, I still have a job after that. Wish me luck!

(Yeah, right! ;-)

8 Jun 1996
Bonita Kale

Jim, if you use Little Black Sambo in story time (and I have no idea whether you were serious or not), -please- let us know what reactions you get. And crosspost to pubyac.

Has anyone here read _The Abolition of Man_, by CS Lewis? I think it touches on what Jim Maroon and Julius Lester are saying. He argues -against- the idea that statements of value are only descriptions of the feelings of the speaker, and -for- the idea that statements such as "the waterfall is sublime," or "this book is racist" express something about reality and can be true or false.

But Lewis is much clearer and more fun to read than that paragraph would suggest!

Anyway, I have the impression you're talking about different things, and using the word "racist" in marginally different ways. I know I ran into LBS as a kid, and I believe it did me no harm, but that doesn't mean it wasn't racist, anyway.

But that was the New York area, around 1950, and I was a white kid who saw a black person maybe twice a year. Now, in the Cleveland area, around 2000, LBS would sound strange as all get-out. You might have to be an adult to appreciate what the characters' names and the fine clothes imply, but any kid can understand that you don't call your friends "Little Black Jane" or "Little Black Harry".

Now, if you would explain what's so sexist about _The Secret Garden_, Jim, I might see something I didn't see before!

8 Jun 1996
Bonita Kale

Reply to message from smarek of Fri, 07 Jun:

"I will stand by my original definition of the Holocaust: when the word is capitalized it refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans through a policy of genocide by the Nazis. Each and every time that we extend this definition of the Holocaust to other examples of misery and destruction we almost imperceptibly begin to marginalize and devalue both the word and the reality that it represents."

First sentence yes, second sentence no.

It can happen. It happened to the word "ghetto", which has become a generalized term, instead of meaning a place where Jews are locked up at night.

But--

To set certain words aside as too important to be used in a metaphor is not the answer, nor is it possible.

8 Jun 1996
Elizabeth H Wiley

Tell all that to Deborah Thomson who wrote last year with more authority than either of us that LBS was the only book she ever physically destroyed in her life. She detested LBS as a child because white children and adults had no qualms about using the name and others to ridicule her and her people, so having no outlet for her anger against name callers she took it out on her copy of LBS and "cut it to shreds--a serious action for someone who would try to read by the light of the moon when my parents sent me to bed." She began by thanking Julius Lester for putting the discussion in perspective.

You are right, wrong is the wrong word to use. Thanks. You are also right that most people don't hear what I hear in the phrase about clothes. I think I'm hearing echos of white adults from my childhood in the 40s. I don't know how far back their echos went but I assume pretty far.

8 Jun 1996
Nancy Paquin

Stephen wrote:

"And from my point of view this statement is about as accurate as one can be:

What I was trying to show is that language is important, that it matters, and that we should try to use it with accuracy."

Words are the jewels that adorn the soul!

Virginia P
8 Jun 1996

I JUST joined this group, but am already fascinated with the discussion of LBS, a story I barely know because its been so long since it has been "acceptable" reading in public schools. I teach an introductory class to early childhood education for undergrads in which the students are required to share a children's book with the class. A student brought in a copy of LBS that she had found in her house and asked if she could share that. Initially, I discouraged her, not only for the controversy, but also because it did not have many of the picture storybook criteria that we were looking for. However, due to this discussion, I might ask her to share it and see what kind of discussion it generates in class. (Maybe I'll include it with other controversial books for young children, such as In the Night Kitchen). I certainly plan on using the elements of the discussion that I've read here, and I'll let you know how it goes.

8 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Elizabeth H Wiley wrote: "Tell all that to Deborah Thomson who wrote last year with more authority than either of us that LBS was the only book she ever physically destroyed in her life. She detested LBS as a child because white children and adults had no qualms about using the name and others to ridicule her and her people, so having no outlet for her anger against name callers she took it out on her copy of LBS and "cut it to shreds--a serious action for someone who would try to read by the light of the moon when my parents sent me to bed." She began by thanking Julius Lester for putting the discussion in perspective."

Yes. I visited Farrosa's site yesterday and read it. I respect her feelings and her reactions entirely, and I understand them, or at least as much as any white American male can. Growing up in the central California valley as poor white trash Oki, I know how much names used in bigotry can hurt. However, you clearly point out the reasons for her feelings, which had far more to do with how she had been treated in her life and how the name Sambo was used in her childhood than with the book itself. That book was not the cause of her feelings, and it was not at fault for how its symbols were used by bigots later on. Other African Americans who have spoken here did not have the extreme reaction she did, instead finding a mix of affection and unease with it. And there are others who I have talked to who just flat out loved it. That is because of their background. Their context.

She was affected by the context of her times, a context I do not share and which is hopefully changing. Also in that thread was a post about storytelling superstar Jackie Torrence, an African American woman and one of the few people on the planet I recognize as a Master Storyteller (if you ever get a chance to hear her tell, you MUST!). A young African American man came to her very excited about a new story he had "discovered", and it turned out to be Little Black Sambo. This man did not share Deborah Thompson's experience. I realize I am making a huge assumption here, but I would bet he had never heard the term Sambo used in a derogatory fashion. So, in that case, he did not see the racism Deborah saw.

Our friend Linnea Hendrickson has a paper coming out soon, not about LBS, but rather about Epaminondes and the possibility that we may be able to reclaim some of these symbols. I think this dicsussion and the various experiences and examples cited in this thread bear her out. But, I could be poorly parphrasing her position, so I recommend you check out her paper for yourself. It will be in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Children's Literature

"You are right, wrong is the wrong word to use."

Not necessarily. Sometimes wrong is the right word to use, unless you use it in the wrong situations. Sometimes wrong is wrong and right is right, and sometimes wrong is right and right is wrong. Sometimes neither is neither because they aren't the only two alternatives.

But, of course, I could be wrong. :-)

8 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Bonita Kale wrote:

"Jim, if you use Little Black Sambo in story time (and I have no idea whether you were serious or not), -please- let us know what reactions you get."

I am serious, and I will be happy to share reactions. Not sure if I'll crosspost to pubyac, since they lack the context of this particular discussion, but I'll consider that as well.

"Now, if you would explain what's so sexist about _The Secret Garden_, Jim, I might see something I didn't see before!"

Not likely. I doubt we share perspective. :-)

It has been several years since I read it, but as the father of a VERY strong willed little girl who will take guff from nobody and who can dish it out as well as she can take it, I recall being very uncomfortable with the implication that the lead character (can't even recall her name. What Kind of a librarian am I, anyway) was flawed in the beginning when in reality she merely displayed character traits (like a strong will) folks would find completely acceptable in a boy. Then, when she was all sweetness and light and dainty by the end, she was somehow fixed.

But then, I realize this indicates my personal bias, since I get very frustrated with teachers who try to tell me my daughter needs fixing when all she is doing is asserting herself as a person in a way that wouldn't so much as raise an eyebrow if she were male, and in fact would be seen as admirable and as a sign of leadership. I weary of the double standard and unequal treatment for boys and girls, and for me, that's what this book represents.

Silly, eh?

10 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

Elizabeth H Wiley

"I think you are wrong. I think Lester is right."

No. I'm not wrong. I just see it differently. We are probably both right, except where he says I'm wrong. In that case, he is wrong. Although, unless I'm right, I could be wrong about that. But then, I have been wrong about things like this before. :-)

I love it when there are only two possibilities. At least then I have a fifty-fifty chance.

10 Jun 96
Jim Maroon

oops!

Sorry, all! Especially Elizabeth. I typed this up last Friday and thought I had deleted it, but I guess not. When I checked my e-mail this morning it apparently was sent. I'm really not trying to start this thing back up again!

10 Jun 1996
Stephen Marek

This is my last posting on this topic, cause it's getting pretty far afield from Little Black Sambo and racism.

I never said or even remotely suggested that it was less evil. My objection was and continues to be the sloppy use of language and, to a lesser degree, our inability or outright refusal to make historical distinctions. But, if we get all wrapped up in knots of political correctness about the use of a relatively innocuous word like "feisty," then heaven help us with a word like "apartheid".

To answer your question on the assumption that it is not merely rhetorical, the differences are vast. Legal segregation and discrimination in parts of the post-Civil War United States began in 1877 with the end of Reconstruction and the passage by Southern state legislatures of a whole series of Jim Crow laws which segregated schools, transportation, and most public facilities.Legal segregation continued largely unabated until the 1954 Supreme Court decision on the schools and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Apartheid, on the other hand, was the official government policy of the country of South Africa from 1950 until the early 1990's. It was a policy of total separation enforced by a white European minority against a majority population of blacks (Bantu),coloured,and asians. The Group Areas Act of 1950 and various later "Land Acts" forbid nonwhites from living in, operating businesses, or moving into vast areas of South Africa.Apartheid forbid social contacts between races,restricted each race to certain jobs,and totally denied any nonwhite participation in national government.

Obviously I'm giving you a highly condensed version here. My point is that we are talking here about completely different countries, time periods, and political and cultural realities.Refering to the situation in the post-Civil War United States as apartheid, in my opinion, adds little to our understanding of two very different realities.

12 Jun 1996
Maude Hines

Okay, this is a little late in coming, but a friend of mine has an 1847 edition of Websters, and although it's U.S. and not U.K., I think it's relevant to the OLD discussion that that dictionary defines "Zambo" not only as synonymous with "Sambo," but also as "also, sometimes, the child of an Indian and a Negro." So, LBS is then the offspring of the India and Africa of Bannerman's mind...

28 Jun 96
Russell Barrett

I hesitate to bring LBS up again, but I ran across a quote in Nicholas Tuckerıs The Child and His Book: A Psychological and Literary Exploration (1981) that I wanted to share with members of the list.

Tuckerıs book is a cognitive developmentalist approach to childrenıs literature. After spending the first six chapters, noting the types of literature that appeal to children of different ages (using Piagetıs terms primarily). In Chapter 7, he addresses the subject of ³Selection, censorship, and control² because he sees the effect of childrenıs literature on child readers to be significant. Thus, the issue of censorship becomes important because there are those who claim ³that certain literature has the capacity to produce general, undesirable results in the young² (190).

Hereıs what Tucker has to say about LBS:

³While there will always be arguments about whether it is ever right to interfere with the classics, at least where child readers are concerned, no one seems to mind occasional censorship at the less demanding level of literature for children. But the position becomes more difficult in the case of a childrenıs book where colour prejudice plays such a central part that emendation is impossible, and the issue then turns on whether children should have these books made available to them or not. The cruel, racial humour in Hugh Loftingıs The Story of Dr. Dolittle has already been mentioned, and librarians have also sometimes decided against stocking Helen Bannermanıs late Victorian classic, The Story of Little Black Sambo, because some black children and their parents detest what they see as its patronising attitudes, not to mention the name ŒSamboı itself, and its unhappy associations with racial abuse. For white readers, this book may seem an exciting little story, but perhaps not worth defending--at least in terms of library provision--if the cost is to be the confidence and goodwill of many other readers in the same vicinity. It is one thing for individuals to decide whether to buy a particular book or not for their children, but it is a different matter when a library or school spends public money on childrenıs literature that may hurt or offend some young readers or prejudice the opinion of others. Even so, it would seem desirable that whenever possible literature should remain free from political interference, and in cases where racial wounds have healed there would be little reason to continue trying to protect everyoneıs susceptibilities² (211).

As we already know, the issue of selection and censorship is complicated and there are no easy answers. As Tucker says, (and I agree), ³Argument over selection and censorship is inseparable from discussion about childrenıs literature² (190). If we truly believe that childrenıs literature is important and really does affect the lives of children, then we ought to be concerned with the ramifications (and responsibilities) of selection, censorship, and control. Last Updated

April 12, 2003