by Judith Katz-Schwartz
Dateline: 4/28/98
This is one of those issues on which ulcers are built. I'm not sure how I feel about it, ultimately. On the one hand,
I am strongly in favor of historical accuracy. I think no one should take liberties with cold, hard fact. On
the other hand, I also feel very strongly that anything we say or do that lessens the self esteem or quality of life
for another human being is inexcusable. So, what to do with all those relics of less enlightened
times, those items that depict things, or are called things that we now know is unacceptable? Do we alter
history in favor of political correctness? Or do we forego consideration of people's feelings for the sake of
accuracy?
Ethnic memorabilia has always been a staple of the collecting world. Here in the U.S. we've had
everything from black memorabilia to Chinese memorabilia, Hispanic items to Dutch items. Some of these
images have been endearing, and some of them have been, in light of today's sensibilties, offensive. We find
these things appealing, on some level, for many different reasons, all of them personal.
Images that were socially acceptable a hundred or even fifty years ago, are now frowned upon,
partially I think because our society has become more blended and less white-dominated (I've often
wondered if, a hundred years ago in Asia, there were lots of little figurines of "round eyes"). But what
should we do when writing about, speaking of or dealing in items from the past with names and images that
are no longer considered acceptable in today's polite society?
A case in point is a mechanical bank that depicts an African American man with hand extended. A coin
is placed in the hand, a lever is pressed, and the man flips the coin into his mouth, while rolling his eyes.
The man's features are exaggerated: he has full lips and big, bright eyes. The name of
this bank is "The Jolly N----r". Now, I've never called a person this word in my entire life, nor will I ever,
mostly because it's just not in my lexicon, and it's not in my nature to make a judgment about a person based
on a characteristic over which he has no control, i.e. the color of his skin. But, ten or fifteen years ago, I
might have written out the name of the bank, because, well, that's the name of the bank. And Artie and I
laugh out loud when we read auction ads that say they have for sale the "Jolly Black Man Bank". We
laugh because we think it's silly to change the name of the item because a person could possibly use it as
an epithet against another person. Because, in this context it is not an epithet. It's the name of a hunk
of cast iron and paint. And saying the name of the bank is not the same as shouting the word at a person.
We laugh because we think that saying the name of the bank does not make you a racist, and that whoever
placed the ad is being ridiculous by making an issue of the name.
On the other hand, I wonder if my black friends (who have recently informed me that I should be
calling them African Americans or People Of Color) cringe when they hear the name of that bank, and I plan
to ask each and every one of them about it. Granted, these are my friends, and they know me well, so
they're not likely to be offended at the question (just as I wouldn't be offended if they asked me if I cringe when
someone tells me they "jewed a dealer down" - I do!), whereas they might be put off if they heard some
stranger at an auction say, "Look! There's a Jolly N----r Bank!"
So, is it possible to have one standard for all society, across the board? Can we dictate that everyone must now say, 'Har Chinese Man Brooch", and we must all refer to "Asian Porcelains" and "Native American jewelry?" What's the right thing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your comments, as always, are welcome. If you have something to say, write to me.
If you like, I'll subscribe you to a free short weekly email newsletter that will help you end the week with a
chuckle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~