Now there’s a rewritten version, The Stroy of Little Babaji, with different names, where the family is just supposed to be a nice Indian family with a clever son. The Amazon review:
So you can now read the story to your kids without all the awfulness, if that’s what you want to do. I’m not sure it sold very well; a lot of people are still uncomfortable with it.
My nickname as a child was Little Black Sambo. I never understood the racial connotation until much later, seeing as I was blonde, green-eyed and very fair skin.
We had the book when I was a kid. I don’t remember it as shown in the link with the one exception of the tiger with slippers on his ears.
Uh, yeah, pretty much. I doubt they did it for purely aesthetic reasons. Call it misguided and unsuccessful, but it was obviously an attempt to be less offensive.
[/QUOTE]
Oh for fuck’s sake. Look, we’re talking about a book here, why don’t you go post in one of the zillion pit threads that allege that Palin wants to ban books or outlaw abortions or force gays to convert to straights or whatever ridiculous thing the loonie lefties have their underpants in a wad over today, ok?
I appreciate the answers here, I suppose that the best answer is because some people adopted the term as racist, and some versions of the story featured exaggerated caricatures of a black protagonist (and that’s another thread that I may start one of these days). Like I said in the OP, it’s a shame though, I found the story itself to be charming when I was a wee lad, it’s a shame that it’s now virtually banned not because of what it actually is, but because of how people react to it.
Get the Little Babaji version mentioned above. The text is identical to the original except for the character names. (And I think they may refer to the butter as ghee.)
I agree that it’s a shame that “Sambo” became such a racially charged word because the text itself is nothing but sweetness.
One thing about a book on a shelf. It doesn’t change over the years, while sensibilities may swirl all around it.
My mother, a teacher of primary grades all her life, had the book (probably the Little Golden version, I’m not sure) in the classroom library in the 50’s. No one considered it racist; it was just a funny folkish fable (mmm…pancakes…and tigers turning into butter, indeed!). When her classroom was integrated, the black children discovered the book and instead of being insulted, they made it their favorite. Caricatures or not, they could identify more with Black Sambo than they could with Dick and Jane.
I would be surprised to find any USA books published between ca. 1850 and 1950 with any illustrated black or brown characters that were NOT drawn in what we now consider a caricatured manner.
A lot like Mark Twain’s Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, all of these books were a product of their times. I find it hard to believe that any of those authors sat down to deliberately write a “racist” book or intended to offend any racial group. They were just expressing things the way everyone else did without much thought about it.
Maybe skins were thicker back then, regardless of color.
I was surprised recently to see the Sambo’s restaurant still standing and operating in Santa Barbara, California.
Also, my mother always refers to people by race, for some unknown reason.
For example…
“The black guy at the store told me…”
“I saw this Oriental kid…” (Yes, Oriental).
She means nothing by it, race is never relevant to the story she tells, but yet she makes a point of noting and mentioning the person’s race. Is that racist? Whatever the case, it makes me feel weird every time she does it.
At least she stopped using the term “colored” some time ago.
But then now you get that stupid opposite. I had a patron come up to the desk and ask if I’d seen her study partner. “He’s got, uh, brown hair and brown eyes and I guess he’s kind of medium build… glasses…” Well, that’s everybody. Didn’t know if I’d seen him or not. Saw her with him later and she didn’t happen to mention that the guy was Asian - gee, you think that would have helped me find him? But we can’t say he has Asian features because that would be racist, or what? Stupid.
Find a single post I have made mentioning Palin before. I have also specifically said I am NOT saying she said it. If it was a “loonie left” posting, why would I have mentioned Jesse Jackson?
But you made a point of stating in your OP that you found it utterly inconceivable that she might have said this. If you don’t want that part of the OP commented on, you should not have made it. if I post an OP that says it is inconceivable that Catholic priests could be involved in sex with children, and then goes on to discuss societal attitudes towards Lolita, do you not think it possible that people might pick up on my first comment, even though what I wanted to talk about was the second part?
You don’t want to discuss that, fine. Then don’t put it in the OP. But I’m not going to give you a free pass on a silly statement just because you no longer want to talk about it.
I always thought Sambo was awesome, and that the imagery was no more charicatured than say, Hanzel and Gretyl who I found to be kind of idiotic and loathsome.
The website said they had over 1,100 restaurants in 47 States in 1981. Sounds like pretty bad management of the entire chain to piss that away in a few years.
OED tells me that “Sambo” has been used as a nickname, a representative given name, and (more recently) a term of disapprobation, for blacks since the 1700s. It later came also to describe the stereotype of the mush-mouthed slack jawed “subservient” slave.
My mother used to read me Little Black Sambo. I still have the book and the doll (with jet black skin) somewhere. I thought it was just a neat story. Mom used it to teach me about diversity and racism.
‘What do I need shoes for?’
‘They would make your ears look handsome.’
And tigers turning into butter!
I agree it’s a sweet little story that got dragged into the mire of racism.
I try to use race as the first descriptor no matter who I am referring to, to be consistent and offer it as neutral information about someone. 99 and 44/100 % of people around here are white but I still start out “He’s white, with brown hair…” 
[/some comedian on television making fun of reluctance to do this and perverse results that follow]“Uh, you know, that guy. With the hair. Wears shoes. You know – he . . . he . . . HE LIKES FRIED CHICKEN!”
I really think we ought to cut older people some slack about not using the racial term that’s in vogue at the moment.
I still think of Asians as Orientals… that was the term in the late 80’s-early 90’s when I was a teenager, and actually lived in a pretty heavily Asian part of Houston (Alief, specifically near Bellaire & Wilcrest). That was the term we used, that was the term that the Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese and Cambodians used as a generic term for themselves and it wasn’t a big deal.
Now I’m some kind of horrid bigot if I slip and say it, even though I don’t mean anything by it- it’s not like I said “chink”, “gook” or “slant”.
I argue that it’s more precise to say Oriental than Asian, because it (implicitly) at least limits it to East Asia. Going with “Asian” lumps Chinese and Japanese in with linguistically/ethnically very different Kazaks and Indians and Pakistanis.
I’ve always found the proffered explanations pretty stupid. “Carpets are oriental, people are Asian!” Except that Japanese netsuke is Japanese, and Japanese people are . . . Japanese; French Impressionism is French, whereas natives of Paris are properly referred to as . . . French. The mildly-less-stupid rejoinder is the professorial “Oh, well ‘orient’ refers to the East, which presupposes a Western frame of reference. When we’re in Asia, we don’t define ourselves in terms of being East of you!” Well, we’re speaking (at the moment) a Western language, in a Western country. If I thought the Japanese or Chinese or Vietnamese term for people of European descent were anything near as neutral as “Western” or “Occidental,” I’d consider that I had little to complain about.
Isn’t it enough that plenty of Asians don’t want to be called Oriental? I don’t think you’re a horrible bigot or something when you use it, I just think one should at least try to find out what the audience likes. I’ll complain about it, once maybe, and then move on.
Anyway. I just read that Little Black Sambo and all I have to say is what the fuck…? Is he Indian or is he black? Indian kids aren’t generally black.
The Mumbo-Jumbo names for his parents I didn’t like much. Sure sounds like someone making fun of Indian or black names that they can’t possibly pronounce. :rolleyes:
Little Black Sambo has Indian hair.
Other than those things, the story itself is not uncute. But would there really be a story called Little White Julie? It does feel like the race/color of the kid and parents is pointed out unnecessarily.
Anyway, them’s my two cents, from an E. Indian (Asian!) girl.
We do have Snow White and Goldilocks And The Three Bears.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, “Sambo” was a racist term well before the children’s book was written. Here are a few citations from the OED:
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a book about a boy named Sambo wound up being illustrated with racist caricatures. These pictures may not have been what the author would have wanted for her story, but they were consistent with the long established use of “Sambo” to mean a crude and foolish dark-skinned man.
The history of the term or the text of the book aren’t really relevant in this context, though. If someone called Obama “Uncle Tom” then that would rightly be understood as a derogatory remark, even though the name “Tom” is very ordinary and Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an anti-slavery novel.