Didn't know where to put this topic so I decided to start the new thread here.
Has anyone read this series from the mid 1970s? Recommendations, commiserations...? As I understood, it was pretty controversial back in the day. So, is it worth getting it?
Thx in advance.
Its well worth reading. One of Battle's finest. Be warned it is of its day and so some of the language isn't cool, but accept that as of its time and place and that the comic is from a boys war comic and you'll have a blast.
John Wagner at his gritty best and sublime art from Mike Weston, whats not to love. The hardcover from a few years back (I thought we had a thread about it but can't find it) is well worth picking up.
Darkie's Mob is awesome. I read a lot of war comics and this series is one of my favorites.
Here is a link to a recent MCBC podcast: https://megacitybookclub.blogspot.com/2021/04/154-darkies-mob.html
It's a good story with great artwork, there was a version in the megazine a while back where they tried to correct the language, but you have to understand not only the time it was first printed but that's how the soldiers would have spoken at the time the story was set.
If you want to read what other fans have been saying about Darkie's Mob recently check out the Battle Fans page on Facebook
Darkie's Mob was reprinted in the Megazine, 202 to 210, with the dialogue revised to remove the 1970s racism. I can't really remember it, but it was by Wagner so it's probably good.
It has a notably similar overall narrative thrust to the first series of Bad Company:
it's narrated by a young newcomer who writes letters home, but the focus is on Darkie, the gruff, sometimes murderous but also highly competent and intelligent leader who has some mysterious connection to the enemy that is revealed towards the end.
Week to week the episodes were basically jungle war action shenanigans (mostly set in Burma, I think?), with perhaps a bit more than usual questioning of the morality involved in certain actions, and exploration of the relative attitudes of different soldiers to the requirement to kill.
I'd never heard of it untl it ran in the Megazine, when I enjoyed it very much. Can't say they successfully edited out the anti-Japanese racism, beyond changing a few words - but as has been said, during war, people are encouraged to be VERY racist, it's part of the situation, really.
As a big fan of Battle I recommend it very highly. Mike Western's finest work imo.
Quote from: rogue69 on 29 April, 2021, 11:21:08 PM
... you have to understand not only the time it was first printed but that's how the soldiers would have spoken at the time the story was set.
Yes, it's a funny one, and weirdly comic-specific. A historical novel, film or TV series set in WW2 that has a few instances of soldiers being less-than-PC towards their foes is probably never going to face too much criticism for that.
The VCs saying 'chinky' and Ro-Jaws calling Hitaki a 'nip'... pretty problematic. But allied soldiers fighting the Japanese in the jungles of Burma...?
Quote from: Rogue Judge on 29 April, 2021, 10:46:49 PM
Darkie's Mob is awesome. I read a lot of war comics and this series is one of my favorites.
Here is a link to a recent MCBC podcast: https://megacitybookclub.blogspot.com/2021/04/154-darkies-mob.html
Yeah, I saw recently that post post here, with the link, which sparked my interest in the comic.
As for the language, I read that Wagner regrets it now, but I thought "what the hell". In a battle, you can't rely on kindness.
I noticed people call it very violent stuff, which is sold to kids (boys) lol.
Anyway, off to Amazon.
The problems from strips like Darkie's Mob can be (and I'll avoid specifics here as I can't quite remember how bad this is or isn't in that series) not so much the language directly at different characters from cultures as that can reflect the time contemporary to when the strip is set. Rather its the language used and portrayal of the characters from those cultures.
Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 30 April, 2021, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: rogue69 on 29 April, 2021, 11:21:08 PM
... you have to understand not only the time it was first printed but that's how the soldiers would have spoken at the time the story was set.
Yes, it's a funny one, and weirdly comic-specific. A historical novel, film or TV series set in WW2 that has a few instances of soldiers being less-than-PC towards their foes is probably never going to face too much criticism for that.
Any argument about historically accurate dialogue in kids war comics falls at the first hurdle because none of them are swearing like the fucking troopers they are.
Have mixed feelings about this. Any work of art or entertainment is a product of the social attitudes of its time as much as its creators own ideas. So, on the one hand, I don't think editing out stuff like this is particularly useful as you're partly denying to a future reader that it ever happened. From that point of view actually leaving it as is and having this conversation about it is greater evidence of progress. On the other hand, I'm not the one being abused in the dialogue.
Colin's point about the stereotypes of those characters is perhaps more important but othering the enemy to make them seem inhuman and only to be destroyed is the entire purpose of wars and armies.
Conclusion: "And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might best spend the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind.
"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns."
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
Anyway, off to Amazon.
Temporarily out of stock.
Oh well, gotta quell my hunger for Battle stories with Invasion 1984.
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 11:01:28 AM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
Anyway, off to Amazon.
Temporarily out of stock.
Oh well, gotta quell my hunger for Battle stories with Invasion 1984.
There appears to be copies at Forbidden Planet
https://forbiddenplanet.com/49579-darkies-mob-hardcover-titan-edition/ (https://forbiddenplanet.com/49579-darkies-mob-hardcover-titan-edition/)
Quote from: I, Cosh on 30 April, 2021, 10:13:31 AM
Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 30 April, 2021, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: rogue69 on 29 April, 2021, 11:21:08 PM
... you have to understand not only the time it was first printed but that's how the soldiers would have spoken at the time the story was set.
Yes, it's a funny one, and weirdly comic-specific. A historical novel, film or TV series set in WW2 that has a few instances of soldiers being less-than-PC towards their foes is probably never going to face too much criticism for that.
Any argument about historically accurate dialogue in kids war comics falls at the first hurdle because none of them are swearing like the fucking troopers they are.
Have mixed feelings about this. Any work of art or entertainment is a product of the social attitudes of its time as much as its creators own ideas. So, on the one hand, I don't think editing out stuff like this is particularly useful as you're partly denying to a future reader that it ever happened. From that point of view actually leaving it as is and having this conversation about it is greater evidence of progress. On the other hand, I'm not the one being abused in the dialogue.
Colin's point about the stereotypes of those characters is perhaps more important but othering the enemy to make them seem inhuman and only to be destroyed is the entire purpose of wars and armies.
Conclusion: "And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might best spend the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind.
"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns."
Good points here.
I feel one should be careful about dismissing these issues as being of their time or being realistic. FYI I didn't read Darkie's Mob. I started the Megazine reprint, said "yikes!" to myself and didn't carry on reading it.
If the story explored the nature of war and the dehumanising of the "enemy", then there is certainly value to be had, as it is engaging with the problem. If it doesn't, it
is the problem. It's just the thing. To be pedantic, the very nature of fiction negates realism. For instance, all the mundanity and inaction is excised for the sake of a paced narrative (usually). There are also choices as to what realistic aspects to include and what not to include re. the point about swearing. Darkie's Mob didn't
need the racism and the fact soldiers can be racist in and of itself does not justify the racism.
It being of it's time is rather dismissive of the problems as well. Even in the 70's there were anti-racist and civil rights movements. As with today, there wasn't one unified social attitude and also as with today, the voices of those marginalised are not given the same volume as those that marginalise. It is not a product of it's time, it's a product of ignorance.
I think it's fair to say that John Wagner was writing in a time when he didn't know better and I think it is good that he recognises the problems now that he
does know better.
Whether it should be changed to remove the racism, I don't know. It's already out there
with the racism. Still, those who it harms might like to enjoy the story without feeling attacked by it.
I couldn't get into Darkie's Mob, myself, but I have enjoyed lots of other problematic media. It's kinda inescapable, really. I guess if you like the old boy's comic style of writing* of a military conflict in a real world setting with a story that has parallels with Bad Company, you'll probably like Darkie's Mob.
I also hope no one feels like I'm calling them out with my post. My experience with Forum so far has been largely positive in these regards and I've not had much call to doubt you are all fine people. I just want to point out the potential certain takes have of developing into apologia because I think it has value in discussions of this nature.
*This was the other reason I stopped reading. I find the style hard to read so I need a big sell to get me through it. Struggling to read something offensive isn't fun for me.
Pictsy has summed this up perfectly for me.
Honestly, I'd recommend Charley's War over anything else. That story knows damn well who the 'bad guys' are (ie: warmongers, capitalists, and the upper classes.)
Darkie's Mob just doesn't have anything to say other than 'Jimmy J*p.'
For an authentic, compelling and yes, by times amusing, account of life as an ordinary foot-soldier in Burma during the war, I would highly recommend George MacDonald Fraser's "Quartered Safe Out Here".
https://www.complete-review.com/reviews/frasergm/qsafe.htm
Really good post Pictsy
A bit like a discussion on the film thread where I've had the experience of recommending an old film only for someone to point out it's a bit dodgy in some of it's attitudes or depictions, it's important that we actually put some thought into our stance on stuff like this.
I grew up on Battle and find myself often caught out when I look at stuff like Darkies Mob with a critical eye. I have great affection for it because of the time I read it, so I just think "yeah, it's brilliant" - only to realise that a lot of the more problematic elements didn't even appear on my radar on a cursory recollection because it for a white kid reading comics back then it was normal: they were racist, brutal, patriarchal (indeed often entirely bereft of female characters). That's not just war comics either.
So how to react to stuff like that now? I think DM is still worth reading - it's got a great story and the art is immense but like Cosh says, I'm not the one being racially abused in the dialogue or art so I need to listen to the voices of those who are and then read it with that in mind. FWIW I don't generally think books / comics / films like this should be edited to remove content: seeing and understanding it and the context it was produced in strengthens change - but I'm conscious that even that's written from my position of privilege. If you do track it down Milstar I hope you enjoy it, but that it also makes you think.
I've only read it in the Megazine, and either didn't realise or had forgotten it was censored there. It's very easy to see how Bad Company came about - someone in charge must have said 'Darkie's Mob was great, John. Can you do it again, but in space?' I don't know how well versed Pete Milligan was in Battle comics, but even the [spoiler]twist at the end[/spoiler] of the first book of BC is pretty much a sci-fi version of the [spoiler]end of DM[/spoiler].
Quote from: Colin YNWA on 30 April, 2021, 11:15:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 11:01:28 AM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
Anyway, off to Amazon.
Temporarily out of stock.
Oh well, gotta quell my hunger for Battle stories with Invasion 1984.
There appears to be copies at Forbidden Planet
https://forbiddenplanet.com/49579-darkies-mob-hardcover-titan-edition/ (https://forbiddenplanet.com/49579-darkies-mob-hardcover-titan-edition/)
Ah... Can't do. I have to use Amazon only.
As for the topic: well, I sometimes enjoy trashy things for the trash sake. I watched recently Death Wish 3 and it definitely is not the movie with meaningful take on gang violence and vigilantism, and like every Death Wish, it has a rape scene in it, but again, don't expect some thought provoking subject matter.
A lot of fictional works, much celebrated, are seen dated now. So I think it's valid when someone defenses it with "it was the times". Because that's how it was. In the war specifically, hardly you'd save a dear words for your enemy, who probably thinks about you the same. I read Ennis' Adventures in the Rifle Brigade and it's devilishly entertaining stuff, full of Ennis' quirkness and dark humor. And the soldiers call Germans (Nazis) - Jerry, Fritz, Kraut, as they did in real life. In Vietnam, it was changed to "gook, yellow bastard etc". Then again, there is always the question of how much of real life should be incorporated into a work of a fiction, comic book or otherwise. And you have to balance the two. If anybody read The Shadow Blood and Judgement by Howard Chaykin, you could see overt sexist tones, even for a comic released in 1986. But Chaykin said he just tried to do the justice to the character whose mindset is still in the 1930s. But I think it's important to have these works as we could observe them catching the zeitgeist of times they were set or are about.
Btw, I couldn't possibly imagine that my thread would lead to such thought - provoking discussion :)
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: Colin YNWA on 30 April, 2021, 11:15:33 AM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 11:01:28 AM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 09:50:54 AM
Anyway, off to Amazon.
Temporarily out of stock.
Oh well, gotta quell my hunger for Battle stories with Invasion 1984.
Bezos has out you under his spell BREAK FREE, BREAK FREE
There appears to be copies at Forbidden Planet
https://forbiddenplanet.com/49579-darkies-mob-hardcover-titan-edition/ (https://forbiddenplanet.com/49579-darkies-mob-hardcover-titan-edition/)
Ah... Can't do. I have to use Amazon only.
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 01:49:18 PM
A lot of fictional works, much celebrated, are seen dated now. So I think it's valid when someone defenses it with "it was the times". Because that's how it was.
Defending a piece of work because it is outdated and thus of it's time can be legitimate. For example, the writing style of Darkie's Mob is of it's time.
Specifically the racist elements, no. Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements. As in, defending racism.
Secondly, it gives a pass to racism of the past because it was the past and they didn't know any better. One is ignoring all the voices of that time that suffered from and were against racism. Anti-racism and civil right campaigners have been at it for centuries now. For those that were ignorant, it's still not defendable.
Thirdly, it's not of it's time, it's right now as well. Racism hasn't ended. This is still a problem we face. It is still relevant and it is still current.
I'm going to assume you didn't mean specifically the racist elements, but I do feel it important to really stress this point.
QuoteIn the war specifically, hardly you'd save a dear words for your enemy, who probably thinks about you the same. I read Ennis' Adventures in the Rifle Brigade and it's devilishly entertaining stuff, full of Ennis' quirkness and dark humor. And the soldiers call Germans (Nazis) - Jerry, Fritz, Kraut, as they did in real life. In Vietnam, it was changed to "gook, yellow bastard etc". Then again, there is always the question of how much of real life should be incorporated into a work of a fiction, comic book or otherwise. And you have to balance the two. If anybody read The Shadow Blood and Judgement by Howard Chaykin, you could see overt sexist tones, even for a comic released in 1986. But Chaykin said he just tried to do the justice to the character whose mindset is still in the 1930s. But I think it's important to have these works as we could observe them catching the zeitgeist of times they were set or are about.
Sure, like I said, if you're going to do something with it, it might have value and could be justified.
From what I saw of DM and what has been said so far, I feel confident that DM is just using racist language and imagery in... an exploitative manner, I guess. The racism in DM can't be excused as realistic because it doesn't hold up in context. It wasn't the intent of the author, it is not required for the tone of the story (re no swearing), it is a comic that was targeted towards children etc.
Charley's War was brought up (which I have read quite a bit of). That is not a realistic depiction of WWI despite drawing upon many real elements. It is hyperbolic. Nevertheless, the real elements are included in service to a point. It's a long time since I read it, but I don't remember the depictions of German soldiers being racist caricatures, either. I think the depictions were more sympathetic in places.
I also neglected to point out that "Darkie" is a racial slur that is still being used. So there's that, as well.
Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements. As in, defending racism.
Profoundly no. Stripping a dialogue about the past context of the content of its modern context is a totalising logic. Nobody is defending racism either now or then.
Quote from: BPP on 01 May, 2021, 08:31:57 AM
Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements. As in, defending racism.
Profoundly no.
Actually yes, defending racism
is defending racism. I worry that you didn't see the obvious point to what I wrote there. I thought I was being condescending and it probably didn't need pointing out. Well done for proving me wrong in that regard, at the very least.
Quote
Stripping a dialogue about the past context of the content of its modern context is a totalising logic.
What? This is incoherent. I have no idea what point is being addressed here. Neither do I see the point trying to be made. Stripping dialogue? Are you referring to the edited version DM? Are you suggesting that DM
should have racist dialogue and caricatures because fiction about the past shouldn't be written in modern contexts? Either way, you are grossly wrong and I've already stated why.
Quote
Nobody is defending racism either now or then.
As for this. At first I thought you meant on the forum and in this discussion specifically. But you write "now or then". Very general statement. Nobody is defending racism either now or then. Then how is there the racism NOW
and THEN? Do you think people do it by accident? Yes, people did defend racism and they still do. Fucking hell, I can barely begin with how awful your sentence here is.
If you
did mean specifically on the forum then I didn't make that accusation so your point is moot, regardless.
I have read and re-read this post countless times to see if I'm getting the wrong impression from it and every time I look at it from a different angle (which is hard because it looks like a fart of a thought) it just gets worse. I really thought I was preaching to choir, but apparently not. Your post, BPP, is really gross. The Forum deserves better.
Now I concede I may be doing you wrong here and I'm not going to apologise for it because I found your post highly distasteful and offensive in what is messily being implied by it. I have no shame in calling out this kind of garbage, whether it was your intent or not.
Quote from: pictsy on 01 May, 2021, 11:04:42 AM
Quote from: BPP on 01 May, 2021, 08:31:57 AM
Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements. As in, defending racism.
Profoundly no.
Actually yes, defending racism is defending racism. I worry that you didn't see the obvious point to what I wrote there. I thought I was being condescending and it probably didn't need pointing out. Well done for proving me wrong in that regard, at the very least.
Quote
Stripping a dialogue about the past context of the content of its modern context is a totalising logic.
What? This is incoherent. I have no idea what point is being addressed here. Neither do I see the point trying to be made. Stripping dialogue? Are you referring to the edited version DM? Are you suggesting that DM should have racist dialogue and caricatures because fiction about the past shouldn't be written in modern contexts? Either way, you are grossly wrong and I've already stated why.
Quote
Nobody is defending racism either now or then.
As for this. At first I thought you meant on the forum and in this discussion specifically. But you write "now or then". Very general statement. Nobody is defending racism either now or then. Then how is there the racism NOW and THEN? Do you think people do it by accident? Yes, people did defend racism and they still do. Fucking hell, I can barely begin with how awful your sentence here is.
If you did mean specifically on the forum then I didn't make that accusation so your point is moot, regardless.
I have read and re-read this post countless times to see if I'm getting the wrong impression from it and every time I look at it from a different angle (which is hard because it looks like a fart of a thought) it just gets worse. I really thought I was preaching to choir, but apparently not. Your post, BPP, is really gross. The Forum deserves better.
Now I concede I may be doing you wrong here and I'm not going to apologise for it because I found your post highly distasteful and offensive in what is messily being implied by it. I have no shame in calling out this kind of garbage, whether it was your intent or not.
Deliberate misreading - check
Insults - check.
Patronising- check
Faux intellectual superiority - check
Supposed moral superiority -check.
Internet grandstanding - check.
I'm oot. We can agree racism is wrong but we can disagree as to whether you're a healthy person to discuss with.
I'm out. Rather reread Nemesis than your guff.
:o ::)
I have no shame in aggressively calling out a post that seems to me to have gross implications. I never imagined my efforts would amount to a monumental waste of time through such dismissiveness and disengagement.
I guess I can't win them all.
Quote from: pictsy on 30 April, 2021, 03:43:46 PM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 01:49:18 PM
A lot of fictional works, much celebrated, are seen dated now. So I think it's valid when someone defenses it with "it was the times". Because that's how it was.
Defending a piece of work because it is outdated and thus of it's time can be legitimate. For example, the writing style of Darkie's Mob is of it's time.
Specifically the racist elements, no. Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements. As in, defending racism.
Secondly, it gives a pass to racism of the past because it was the past and they didn't know any better. One is ignoring all the voices of that time that suffered from and were against racism. Anti-racism and civil right campaigners have been at it for centuries now. For those that were ignorant, it's still not defendable.
Thirdly, it's not of it's time, it's right now as well. Racism hasn't ended. This is still a problem we face. It is still relevant and it is still current.
I'm going to assume you didn't mean specifically the racist elements, but I do feel it important to really stress this point.
QuoteIn the war specifically, hardly you'd save a dear words for your enemy, who probably thinks about you the same. I read Ennis' Adventures in the Rifle Brigade and it's devilishly entertaining stuff, full of Ennis' quirkness and dark humor. And the soldiers call Germans (Nazis) - Jerry, Fritz, Kraut, as they did in real life. In Vietnam, it was changed to "gook, yellow bastard etc". Then again, there is always the question of how much of real life should be incorporated into a work of a fiction, comic book or otherwise. And you have to balance the two. If anybody read The Shadow Blood and Judgement by Howard Chaykin, you could see overt sexist tones, even for a comic released in 1986. But Chaykin said he just tried to do the justice to the character whose mindset is still in the 1930s. But I think it's important to have these works as we could observe them catching the zeitgeist of times they were set or are about.
Sure, like I said, if you're going to do something with it, it might have value and could be justified.
From what I saw of DM and what has been said so far, I feel confident that DM is just using racist language and imagery in... an exploitative manner, I guess. The racism in DM can't be excused as realistic because it doesn't hold up in context. It wasn't the intent of the author, it is not required for the tone of the story (re no swearing), it is a comic that was targeted towards children etc.
Charley's War was brought up (which I have read quite a bit of). That is not a realistic depiction of WWI despite drawing upon many real elements. It is hyperbolic. Nevertheless, the real elements are included in service to a point. It's a long time since I read it, but I don't remember the depictions of German soldiers being racist caricatures, either. I think the depictions were more sympathetic in places.
I also neglected to point out that "Darkie" is a racial slur that is still being used. So there's that, as well.
Well, I must thoroughly disagree here. I won't waste my words on Darkie's Mob, because I never read it, so I can't speak much about that (I'll do it once I read it). What I can say is that for the comic being sold to boys (albeit judging by its content, it's not appropriate material for them), let that be a testament of the times it had been made. For better or worse. One thing I am sure, I don't think Wagner intended for it to be KKK racist. Nor do I believe it's exploitative material. Wagner never would do that. Besides, I don't see anyone claiming here that racist views expressed, also express the views of themselves.
Outside that and in the world of art in general, I must bluntly stress that art as such shouldn't give you moral lessons. Nor it is the purpose of it. On such questions, the audience must reach those answers alone. Art should reflect life. And if any such works incite audience's reaction, that either could be good or bad. But speaking about bad, if anyone for a second considers killing someone in cold blood because he has seen it in a movie, then do you know how many movies would be banned from existence today? Same with racism. One fictional work shouldn't be accountable for the actions of people. Words don't hurt people. People hurt people. That's why I am against censorship, of any kind. And I firmly believe that not a single word should be banished from existence. I don't think it ever happened in the history of mankind, though.
Now, a lot of works of art are controversial in that regard. Either for being very much of its time or paying homage for the specific time it has been set. So, that's why we have Birth of a Nation, which was probably the first masterpiece of cinema, despite its subject matter. Thematically not really, but costumes, camerawork, editing, overall production values - all cutting edge stuff for 1915. And then you could get away with the production of such film. Today, I couldn't even imagine it. Should we impose a permanent ban on the movie? No. Had Tatantino's Django Unchained had copious amount of N word? It did. But that's how people talked then. And the notorious fact is that humanity is fucked up and is capable for all sorts of fucked up stuff. Ofcourse, these will get explored in music, comic books, cinema, etc. I mean, I don't like that Holocaust happened, but it did and I can't do anything about it. But at least we have movies like Schindler's List, as a warning.
As for civil rights movement progression, they were still pretty much ineffective in the 1970s. Those were very gullible time and you could get away with anything. And the 1980s were even worse and much less PC than the 1970s.
The new comic "Blazer" has a strip in the wartime jungle and used the word "Jap". This caused a bit of a stir and of course there were similar arguments made that it was a word that would have been used, it's just a shortening of "Japanese" and the like.
I delved a bit deeper, and it appears that this is particularly offensive as after the war it was still used purely as a racist insult, and Japanese civilians were horrendously treated with this word right at the centre.
Stuff liek Jerry and Kraut is still in Commando comics, as they aren't seen as racist, mainly because they don't upset Germans - more a nickname than insult. Yes, I realize that when in the mouth of an aggressive racist they ARE racist, but that's another story.
SO Darkies Mob is a special case, as it deals with the Japanese, a race of people who genuinely suffered due to their country's wartime actions. Prior to researching wartime slang for different nationalities I had no idea - now I do.
WIth regards to DM, I personally don't have a problem with it, but if racial slurs were edited out professionally it wouldn't damage the experience for me, and new readers wouldn't know anyway.
Quote from: milstar on 01 May, 2021, 02:01:09 PM
Well, I must thoroughly disagree here. I won't waste my words on Darkie's Mob, because I never read it, so I can't speak much about that (I'll do it once I read it). What I can say is that for the comic being sold to boys (albeit judging by its content, it's not appropriate material for them), let that be a testament of the times it had been made. For better or worse. One thing I am sure, I don't think Wagner intended for it to be KKK racist. Nor do I believe it's exploitative material. Wagner never would do that. Besides, I don't see anyone claiming here that racist views expressed, also express the views of themselves.
Outside that and in the world of art in general, I must bluntly stress that art as such shouldn't give you moral lessons. Nor it is the purpose of it. On such questions, the audience must reach those answers alone. Art should reflect life. And if any such works incite audience's reaction, that either could be good or bad. But speaking about bad, if anyone for a second considers killing someone in cold blood because he has seen it in a movie, then do you know how many movies would be banned from existence today? Same with racism. One fictional work shouldn't be accountable for the actions of people. Words don't hurt people. People hurt people. That's why I am against censorship, of any kind. And I firmly believe that not a single word should be banished from existence. I don't think it ever happened in the history of mankind, though.
Now, a lot of works of art are controversial in that regard. Either for being very much of its time or paying homage for the specific time it has been set. So, that's why we have Birth of a Nation, which was probably the first masterpiece of cinema, despite its subject matter. Thematically not really, but costumes, camerawork, editing, overall production values - all cutting edge stuff for 1915. And then you could get away with the production of such film. Today, I couldn't even imagine it. Should we impose a permanent ban on the movie? No. Had Tatantino's Django Unchained had copious amount of N word? It did. But that's how people talked then. And the notorious fact is that humanity is fucked up and is capable for all sorts of fucked up stuff. Ofcourse, these will get explored in music, comic books, cinema, etc. I mean, I don't like that Holocaust happened, but it did and I can't do anything about it. But at least we have movies like Schindler's List, as a warning.
As for civil rights movement progression, they were still pretty much ineffective in the 1970s. Those were very gullible time and you could get away with anything. And the 1980s were even worse and much less PC than the 1970s.
I think we've got crossed wires here. My points have largely been about how media is talked about and how we, the audience, shouldn't fail to acknowledge or be dismissive of problematic elements. Something I think you and most others (I don't feel I can say everyone) agree with. Maybe it was largely a point that didn't need making, yet I felt the need anyway.
I've already wasted most of today trying to be composed in the face of a serious topic that's becoming increasingly relevant and uncomfortable for me. I would have liked to have addressed some additional points you made, milstar and really clarify what I'm trying to get across.
I don't have the luxury of not being affected by bigotry in media, real life and online and I find BPP's posts so troubling that I feel I should be very cautious about talking openly and frankly about these issues. Even debating with myself whether I should post
this and not just let it go without comment. So I don't think I'll be continuing with this discussion.
I hope you find enjoyment in Darkie's Mob if you can track down a copy, Milstar.
I'm not the smartest of them, but I'll try and give my take on this:
If you're going to use racially offensive slurs and characterisations in a fictional work, then you need to make sure it's called out as such and portrayed as racist within the work itself.
Darkie's Mob doesn't do this which essentially means it's using racism for entertainment purposes, and regardless of the time it was created it just doesn't wash anymore.
(I don't for a second believe that John Wagner is a racist, or was trying to be racist when writing DM. Should add that!)
Quote from: pictsy on 01 May, 2021, 04:38:45 PM
I think we've got crossed wires here. My points have largely been about how media is talked about and how we, the audience, shouldn't fail to acknowledge or be dismissive of problematic elements. Something I think you and most others (I don't feel I can say everyone) agree with. Maybe it was largely a point that didn't need making, yet I felt the need anyway.
I've already wasted most of today trying to be composed in the face of a serious topic that's becoming increasingly relevant and uncomfortable for me. I would have liked to have addressed some additional points you made, milstar and really clarify what I'm trying to get across.
I don't have the luxury of not being affected by bigotry in media, real life and online and I find BPP's posts so troubling that I feel I should be very cautious about talking openly and frankly about these issues. Even debating with myself whether I should post this and not just let it go without comment. So I don't think I'll be continuing with this discussion.
I hope you find enjoyment in Darkie's Mob if you can track down a copy, Milstar.
Yes, thanks Pictsy. One day I'll get the copy of Darkie's Mob, I reserve my judgement 'til then on the book, so I can't say anything more about it. I believe people here are good people, who despise racism in all its form. Sometimes perhaps in various sundry discussions we disagree, or perhaps sometimes they poorly phrased what they meant, but I think they are good people.
Anyway, I started this thread to ask forum members about their impressions on the Darkie's Mob. I never imagined that the discussion would steer in totally different direction.
You know, following this debate has been interesting as a lot of valid points have been raised. Arguing that there is a danger in ignoring problematic aspects such as racism in a piece of art even if it reflects the sensibilities of a different time seems valid to me.
You can see how a lot of media from the period portrayed attitudes towards race and ethnicity that even at the time were causing problems. Arguing that we should ignore them because they reflected the attitudes of a different age? That does seem to me to be a slippery slope.
One aspect of this debate does, to my mind, need consideration as well though. One feature of conflict is the dehumanising of the enemy. As has been observed, names such as Fritz or Jerry do not have the racial connotations that names such as Nip or Jap do. That said, there were a range of representations of Germans during both wars that reduced them as a people.
This is not attempting to defend this trend. As I say, I agree with the general overall sentiment of the debate. Accepting and glossing over these elements of DM, or any cultural artefact for that matter, could be seen as tacit acceptance of racism and possibly as racist itself. On the other hand though, this sort of debate is invaluable in ensuring that this does not happen.
It's a pity that Ennis isn't more honest and critical of the racist elements of the story in the introduction. He does acknowledge this dimension but then attempts to excuse it by reference to the primary motivational elements of the plot and the historical context. On the plus side there is at least an acknowledgement that these problematic elements exist. It just feels a little feeble.
A more open and honest introduction would interrogate these elements more robustly. It would explore the ways in which such attitudes and language can no longer be accepted and arguably should not have been used so casually at the time of writing. It would consider the dangers of uncritical acceptance of these dimensions of the text and how the reader should be challenged to reflect on the ways in which they affect them.
No doubt Daily Mail readers / writers would decry this as 'woke rubbish' (something we've debated elsewhere) but I think there is a difference between the 'affected sensibility' that to me seems to be implied by 'woke' and a conscious awareness of these sorts of issues, attitudes and views. It is a legitimate issue that needs to be challenged rather than a position adopted for personal gain.
The idea that it's not offensive to non-Japanese readers is a weird one for me. It reminds me of a true story: in a computer game classroom (where no women were present due to current demographics) a student said that "women belong in the kitchen", to which the teacher responded "woah - that's a sexist statement". The student says "but there are no women here"*.
Clearly, it was a sexist statement. And men are allowed to dislike sexism. And recognize it.
You don't need to show D*rkie's Mob to some Japanese veterans from WWII in order for it to be offensive.
Question: does the current reprinting have any discussion about the content or the context?
*This leads to the obvious joke: if a sexist is axed to death in the forest, but no women are around to witness it, has any good been done?
Some questions:
- Why do the Japanese frequently say "Aiee!" as a precursor to other statements? This is like American Indians saying "um" before everything in comics.
- Why is D*rkie superhuman? Impaled by a sword? No problem - he's too tough to kill. Those weak Japanese, though - he plows through them like a hot knife through butter.
- Where are all the British Indian troops? This is Burma - the vast majority of the troops in the British army would not have been white guys.
Some historical notes:
- After the Japanese takeover of Burma, some forces did operate behind enemy lines, but they were sent in, rather than stuck behind the advance. They needed resupply by air and were not a significant threat to the Japanese war effort (it was realized with hindsight). There was Z-Force (mostly native intelligence gathering) and the famous Chindits (big effort for small results).
- The Japanese lost Burma due to their overall supply issues (to do with the entire Pacific theater, rather than by any kind of local tactical superiority of the allied forces). The high water mark came in their (really, desperate last throw of the dice) attack on Imphal, which was defeated. When the Japanese retreated and were chased, it was found they were starving.
- The British are shown as noble and honorable. British government policy in this time period and proximate geographic area caused the Bengal Famine of 1943, in which there were over 3 million deaths.
---
So,we can't pretend that D*rkie's Mob is some kind of historical document. It's pure fantasy, with an anti-Japanese, pro-British, pro-white pallor. That everyone was doing this sort of thing in the 70s doesn't excuse a current printing that doesn't address these issues.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 02 May, 2021, 03:26:33 PM
Question: does the current reprinting have any discussion about the content or the context?
Sorry to triple post and then quote myself (double-crime!) but I just read Tjm86's post which answers that question well.
Having just covered during my Ultimate Collection re-read that section of Robo-Hunter ("AIEEEE! BLAKEE PENTAX!"), I'm glad that at least was addressed by Matt Smith in the introduction. It'd be interesting to see if the same happens in Darkie's Mob.
Japanese people did get a lot of shit in 2000 AD and related publications over the years. The casual use of racist language throughout the classic era comic is pretty overt in a number of Dredd strips. (That it got through also suggests this was institutional to some degree.)
Ultimately, things were different in the past, even if they weren't acceptable. I'm in two minds about reworking older material. I didn't really care when Rebellion did that for Darkie's Mob, nor when The Beano removed Peanut from the masthead/interior of its box-set reproductions. But context and looking back at these things is a better option, where possible.
QuoteWhy is D*rkie superhuman? Impaled by a sword? No problem - he's too tough to kill. Those weak Japanese, though - he plows through them like a hot knife through butter.
To be fair, I wouldn't call that racist, it's a fairly common trope in action stories that the hero is often a badass who can defeat masses of enemies while wounded and outnumbered.
I take your other points though.
Quote from: Richard on 02 May, 2021, 06:48:28 PM
QuoteWhy is D*rkie superhuman? Impaled by a sword? No problem - he's too tough to kill. Those weak Japanese, though - he plows through them like a hot knife through butter.
To be fair, I wouldn't call that racist, it's a fairly common trope in action stories that the hero is often a badass who can defeat masses of enemies while wounded and outnumbered.
I see your point, but I'd argue that the issue here is that it's being presented in a historical context - a real battle in a real war. For me, that's a key aspect of what's at issue. Kano can be invulnerable and the Krool can be weak (the same point I made in a letter to the Meg in 2003) and it doesn't matter because it's entirely a fiction and presented as such. D*rkie's Mob is also reinforcing a negative stereotype, as opposed to a sort of David and Goliath story. (Although I was reading somewhere recently that, rather than being a "yay for the underdog" story, it's really all about who's God is the mightiest, and why it might be okay to enslave the Philistines. Those philistines!)
Interestingly, the (genuine, at the time) British attitude towards the Japanese led them to woefully underestimate the danger they posed militarily. "The idea that all Japanese soldiers were very short-sighted and inherently inferior" (Beevor, 2012) led to fairly humiliating defeats across the area, despite the British forces far outnumbering those of the Japanese.
---
Caveats: I realize it's a well-structured story, and I don't believe that the creators at the time were setting out to be offensive or genuinely held abhorrent views. I do believe strongly that any modern reprinting deserves not just a nervous nod, but a deeper dive into the problematic areas of the publication.
Beevor, A. (2012). The Second World War
To address a very small part of your post, Funt, I just found out yesterday that 'um' is Portuguese for 'a' yesterday and wondered if someone confused colonial Brazilians for native Americans somewhere down the line. Probably not though
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 01:49:18 PM
...And the soldiers call Germans (Nazis) - Jerry, Fritz, Kraut, as they did in real life.
This may seem like nit-picking, but I think it's quite important (it certainly was at the time) to differentiate between Germans who were Nazis and Germans who weren't Nazis. I still appreciate the central thrust of your argument - that soldiery of any side of almost any conflict have pejorative nomenclature for their enemy. Having said that, there are levels: Jerry and Fritz have almost a sense of shared camaraderie, whereas Kraut and Nazi seem more pejorative.
In WWII, there was a considerable difference between the Wehrmacht (regular armed forces) and the Waffen-SS (the military wing of the Nazi party). I've no doubt that there was something of a Venn diagram of beliefs, political affiliations and bigotry across the two, but just in general terms the Wehrmacht were seen as being caught up in the conflict like any solider on any side whereas the SS were seen to have more of a vested interest in Nazi party ideals, and a reputation for brutality towards civilians and prisoners.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 03 May, 2021, 03:31:17 AM
Quote from: milstar on 30 April, 2021, 01:49:18 PM
...And the soldiers call Germans (Nazis) - Jerry, Fritz, Kraut, as they did in real life.
This may seem like nit-picking, but I think it's quite important (it certainly was at the time) to differentiate between Germans who were Nazis and Germans who weren't Nazis. I still appreciate the central thrust of your argument - that soldiery of any side of almost any conflict have pejorative nomenclature for their enemy. Having said that, there are levels: Jerry and Fritz have almost a sense of shared camaraderie, whereas Kraut and Nazi seem more pejorative.
In WWII, there was a considerable difference between the Wehrmacht (regular armed forces) and the Waffen-SS (the military wing of the Nazi party). I've no doubt that there was something of a Venn diagram of beliefs, political affiliations and bigotry across the two, but just in general terms the Wehrmacht were seen as being caught up in the conflict like any solider on any side whereas the SS were seen to have more of a vested interest in Nazi party ideals, and a reputation for brutality towards civilians and prisoners.
Definitely, not every soldier in the German/Nazi army was Nazi. I mean, with Nazi beliefs. On the bottom level, however, he is being seen as an enemy. I think that propaganda was also an important part, if not the most, in dehumanizing the enemy. Whether a war went on, well... I mean, Yankee is used by Southerners in Confederate Army during the US civil war. And it seems almost everyone who participated in any war had a name for the enemy. When I read Ennis' The Adventures in Rifle Brigade, I found that Germans called Brits "Tommies". Don't know if anyone used "Eternal Anglos".
But, I wonder about this controversial thing: do we know what really offends someone? I mean, okay, we all know for notorious terms like: "n——r, f——t, k——e". But, for instance, I never really saw Jap as offensive. To me, it was abbreviated from Japanese. Much like Brit is derived from Briton. Then again, someone might used: "Those filthy Japanese twats", which is indeed offensive. This reminds me of a recent case when someone proposed the term "Latinx" for people from Latin America. Until then, I didn't know how to call those people properly - Latino, Latina? Perhaps Latino for males, Latina for females? But for the whole people in general? Then I saw a lot of people from that background, complaining about the term "Latinx", deeming it deeply offensive.
Edited for board terms—IP
QuoteWhen I read Ennis' The Adventures in Rifle Brigade, I found that Germans called Brits "Tommies"
Now that's interesting. They say it in, iirc, the
All Quiet on the Western Front novel, but I'd thought it was just the English translation for whatever word they really used. A quick Google search reveals that you're right, though. Doesn't sound too offensive, given that they called themselves Tommies too, but I suppose the same could be said of the n-word.
Uh, guys? Can we please stop spelling out the n-word? With the greatest respect. Thank you.
Quote from: milstar on 03 May, 2021, 10:08:48 AMBut, for instance, I never really saw Jap as offensive. To me, it was abbreviated from Japanese.
It was—until it became an ethnic slur after Pearl Harbour, which is hardly recent history. Nip is a similar thing. That these were so widespread in British comics decades later is not good. In the context of wartime comics, their use was not great, but had
potentially some justification in strips seeking to be realistic—although few really were. So what you got was 1940s jingoism transplanted to the 1970s. And it went much wider than that. As I noted earlier, Robo-Hunter—a sci-fi comic from the 1980s—is full of this shit. Dredd is too.
That British people might not have seen this as offensive (or still don't) isn't really relevant, because it was seen as offensive by the people the slur was directed at. "I don't 'feel' X" is a response that generally needs a lot more thought wherever it is used. Remember: plenty of white people don't consider "n——r" offensive today. Jap/nip are in a similar space. The good thing is that those people using these terms in British comics (including Wagner/Grant) seemingly stopped doing so when they became educated about it, rather than doubling down. But I don't think there's really any defence bar ignorance, which isn't really any defence at all.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 03 May, 2021, 02:37:44 PM
Uh, guys? Can we please stop spelling out the n-word? With the greatest respect. Thank you.
Yes, I asked IndigoPrime (sent PM to him) to do the same with f****t and k**e. Don't want people here to think that I have some bias against those people.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 03 May, 2021, 02:37:44 PM
Uh, guys? Can we please stop spelling out the n-word? With the greatest respect. Thank you.
I remember being somewhat taken aback to see it in unedited a Robbie Morrison story in a Dredd Mega Special. Bit unexpected from the house of Tharg, but then it was coming from an alternative universe racist scumbag version of Pa Angel.
Must look out that Mega-Special - I don't remember that. Fictional context for that word is interesting - there's always that question of whether or not you could make Blazing Saddles today. Even where the word is used in a supportive narrative.
Having been in the US for near 13 years, usage is clear. Being white, it's not a word for me to be using (except, perhaps, in private, for educational purposes for my daughter). Context is king, as with the Mob reprint that this thread is discussing.
Talking of supportive: thanks, board, for being so.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 02 May, 2021, 04:11:18 PM
- Where are all the British Indian troops? This is Burma - the vast majority of the troops in the British army would not have been white guys.
There were also significant amounts of African troops in the Burma theatre, as well as the Indian Army.
The fact that they have been written out of the British version of the war is an absolute disgrace and causes grief to this day.
For some reason history has always poorly reflected the British Colonies contribution to the war effort.