 |
| Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd |
Just sat down with my anniversary boxed set of BEANO - 80 YEARS Of FUN, and am hugely disappointed to see that now the 'PC Brigade' are rewriting history. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at the facsimile cover of the first issue above. PEANUT, the little black boy who adorned the masthead has been excised from existence. The joke page which features him is also missing. (As are another 3 pages from what was originally a 28 page periodical.) So much for it having any archival value to collectors or historians.
What's the problem? The first issue has been reprinted several times over the years and Peanut has always been present, so why is he absent now? Racially sensitive perhaps? Maybe even offensive? Bollocks! A cartoon drawing of a black boy should be no more offensive to a black person than a picture of DENNIS The MENACE or FRED FLINSTONE would be to white person. What black people should be offended by is Peanut being written out of history as if he never existed.
The reprint even has a note inside saying "Some pages may contain references which are of their time, but would not be considered suitable today." Yet they omit Peanut, who - as a cartoon caricature - in no way could be considered any less suitable than any other comic strip character, white or otherwise. Take a look at him in a pic from one of the excised pages (below). He's a cute-looking wee fella whose inclusion was never intended to demean black people and surely wouldn't have been considered offensive to or by them at the time. (I think it's safe to assume that they have a sense of humour as well as perspective.)
Every single person who had a hand in the insulting decision to whitewash (no pun intended) Peanut from the comic's history should be lined up in a corridor and given a severe kicking for their seriously unsound, politically correct, pathetically patronising attitude. Remember a few years back when various council bosses and business managers issued an edict that their employees shouldn't swap Christmas cards with the word 'Merry Christmas' on them? Only cards with 'Seasons Greetings' or some equally anaemic, non-specific message should be used, for fear of offending Muslims. The Islamic community's reaction? "Don't be daft - we don't care!" This is yet another example of that kind of stupidity.
Here's how the 2008 book, The HISTORY Of The BEANO, addressed any potential controversy: "It (The Beano) has always been a child of its time, however, and as one looks over 70 years of Beanos, there is some content that would no longer be thought acceptable. When The Beano was first published in 1938 , the drawing of 'Peanut' appeared on the front cover, something that would never be contemplated today. To place The Beano in the context of the time, we keep the image of Peanut in this history but we certainly do not wish to cause any offense by so doing." See? Informative and educational at the same time. That's surely the best way to do it.
Here's how the 2008 book, The HISTORY Of The BEANO, addressed any potential controversy: "It (The Beano) has always been a child of its time, however, and as one looks over 70 years of Beanos, there is some content that would no longer be thought acceptable. When The Beano was first published in 1938 , the drawing of 'Peanut' appeared on the front cover, something that would never be contemplated today. To place The Beano in the context of the time, we keep the image of Peanut in this history but we certainly do not wish to cause any offense by so doing." See? Informative and educational at the same time. That's surely the best way to do it.
The boxed set itself is otherwise excellent and good value for money, and if you're a Beano fan, you're sure to love it. However, if you expect the facsimile of the first issue to accurately capture and reflect the spirit and humour of its time, then be aware that its archival and historical integrity has, sadly, been seriously compromised. Below is how the cover looked back in 1938. It would be nice if Thomson's could remember it for the next big anniversary bash.
17 comments:
Spot on, Kid.
Hiding history that embarrasses us only serves to ensure we never learn from the past, and worse - enables new versions of the same sins.
Pretending it never happened is probably the worst and least "adult" way to deal with things. So, of course, that's becoming the default for how our societies behave.
Hmm...
You know - that kind of thing kind of makes me want to do a series spotlighting some of those old terrible ways characters were portrayed in comics. Rather nice of The Beano to volunteer for whom to look at first.
I'd like to see that series, 3, so hopefully you find the time to write it. I'm sure it would get a lot of attention. Thing is though, Peanuts was never made fun of or verbally abused or racially ridiculed that I know of, so to remove him from a facsimile of a comic that's of interest due to its historical value just seems like utter stupidity to me.
The reason the character is considered offensive is because he's depicted eating watermelons, which is considered a kind of "racial ridiculing" in itself.
If that sounds peculiar, there's a feature here explaining why that was already considered a long established racist trope by 1938:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/how-watermelons-became-a-racist-trope/383529/
It sheds some light on why he's always removed nowadays.
I've still to read that link (and I will), but I'm sure that in some countries, black people probably did eat watermelons on occasion - as did white people also. And, one important point - he's not 'always removed nowadays' - this is the very first time.
Yeah, the watermelon -as well as the style of dress - are part of a derogatory stereotype that was quite prevalent in this country. The depiction fits the basic "pickaninny" configuration, so even when the character is well handled, the surface details are somewhat cringeworthy.* That makes folks uncomfortable, and we wouldn't want people to have to confront uncomfortable issues, would we?
I was thinking it's somewhat similar to the problems with Wing Woo Woo, if you remember the piece on him (from Supersnipe). Although the author seemed to be trying to be progressive for the times, the character drawings were still mired in the visual language of the period - and that wasn't pretty or kind. It may have been a good step forward, but people looking back today don't want steps and incremental progress - they expect spontaneous miracle changes and tend to hold anything less in contempt. (After all, that would imply that current problems don't have instant-fix answers. Nope, nope, nope.)
Nonetheless - it would be far better to add commentary and historical context than to hide a perceived unseemly blemish.
===
*(Cringeworthy Comics might be a good name for the feature, eh?)
I've now read the link, and it's interesting to note that while black people regarded watermelons as a sign of their self-sufficiency after the civil war, obviously racist white people regarded black people's dependence on the fruit as a sign of laziness, inferiority, etc. However, (as the writer himself concedes) there is nothing inherently racist about a watermelon. And that was America, remember. I'm bound to say that I very much doubt that the British editors of The Beano were aware of any negative or racist connotations, and merely used the image in the same 'shorthand' way that most cartoon Scotsmen back then were portrayed wearing Tam O'Shanters and kilts. It was just a convenient way of presenting a caricature - as most cartoons are.
But, just for the purpose of discussion, let's just say that the image could be construed by SOME people as offensive, even though the UK kids who read the comic back then wouldn't have regarded it in such a way. When an iconic periodical is being reprinted for a modern audience, don't you think it's better to present it as it was, in its original historical context, and use it as a lesson to educate and inform? DCT had a disclaimer in the issue anyway, so surely that should have been sufficient?
Or are we to accept that (for example) if any important newspapers or documents are reprinted from World War II, then all references to 'Krauts' or 'Japs' should be redacted or removed? As 3 said, future generations will never learn from the mistakes of the past if we hide them. Instead, we should be using such instances to examine and explain them in the context of their time. It should be viewed as an educational opportunity, not something that should be brushed under the carpet.
You were submitting your response, 3, as I was typing mine, which I published before seeing yours, but we're pretty much in agreement. I think intent has to be considered, and I very much doubt that The Beano regarded the character as racist, nor would it have been their intention to offend anyone, black or white, in any way. Those in charge of the comic nowadays have been overly sensitive to possible criticism, hence their going too far by excising the character from the comic's history.
Both my (white) parents loved watermelons but I was a bit "meh".
I suppose I'm in the leftie/liberal camp but I'm not an extremist and I agree with you, Kid, that we shouldn't censor history. Rather we should explain that attitudes were different in the past but have changed now.
I'm also not in favour of pulling down statues BUT there is a lot of hypocrisy from right-wingers who condemn the pulling-down of statues of slave-owners/imperialists - I don't recall those same right-wingers complaining when statues of Lenin were pulled down in the late '80s.
Right-wingers, left-wingers, both groups are hypocritical on occasion, CJ - as are people from just about every political persuasion (or none). Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. (Except for me, as everybody knows I'm perfect in every way.)
Agreed that newspaper archives should not be censored on terminology they used but that is history for adults. This is a set of comics for the whole family. There's a difference.
There's no difference - unless you're saying that 'history' isn't for the whole family. Whenever the issue has been reprinted in the past, Peanut has always been present on the cover, so there's no legitimate reason for censoring him now. A note could have been included, as on most previous occasions, to explain that the image is 'of its time'. Education and entertainment in one go - what's not to like? In fact, it's disputable whether it IS for the whole family - at £25, it seems aimed more at older collectors, especially given the contents, which all hark back to past times
You are quite right of course. Clearly there is aggressive sensorship these days. The race thing we are not allowed in any meaningful way to discuss. Also, Once we start destroying what are historical and cultural artifax because the state say its not right for these times is niave or is possibly cowardice disguised as morality, we are then in a right spot. The beano/dandy thing is one facet of the odd and irrational.
PC nonsense gone mad in my view. When and where will it all end, or is just going to get worse? Thanks for commenting.
'Peanut may be as black as coke but he can tell a good joke'
That's what it says. Basically thankfully he's funny as it makes up for being black.
Totally offensive unless you're of sub normal intelligence. End of normal person viewpoint. Now get back to your echo chamber howler monkey shyte. Jeez Britain. You used to be great now you're just sad.
Gather round, Crivvies, we have a genuine moron here.
Nope, all it's saying is that Peanut is black as coke in order to contrive a rhyme with joke - that's all. It's not mocking him, ridiculing him, demeaning him, or insulting him. He IS black after all, or do you consider the words black and coke as offensive? One could even argue that it's an early form of inclusivity and diversity, as Peanut was always treated with respect and never made fun of. He was The Beano mascot, and DCT could hardly be described as indulging in racism to award him such an exalted position. And, hey - he could tell a good joke (and some rubbish ones as well, it has to be said).
Britain is still great, it's just woke idiots like you seeking to find offence everywhere that lets your own country down. Did I mention you're a moron? I don't think I can say it enough. Now feck off!
100% racist, but lets not censor history please, it's not the way 'forward'.
Racism is in the eye of the beholder - especially in the eyes of those who are determined to see racism everywhere (even where it doesn't exist).
Post a Comment