Schomburg's KKK robe covers 1 1

[sfcityduck]

1 hour ago, vaillant said:

What do you mean by "very political"?

In the U.S. in the the early 40s, to use KKK imagery (and there's no doubt that's what it is) in such a prominent negative light was a very strong political act of condemning the KKK.  Equating the KKK and Nazi's in that time period, when the South was still segregated and the KKK still prominent, was a bold action that I don't think he would have done unless he felt strongly that the KKK should be condemned.

[rjpb]

17 hours ago, walclark said:

Regardless of his religious affiliation, I think the OP's original question is interesting.  Of all the GA artists, many of whom worked at the same publishers as Schomburg, why was he seemingly the only one (with the exception of the Blue Beetle I posted) that depicted Nazis in hoods and robes?  We all know that emulation was commonplace, but no one else jumped on the bandwagon.

The Startling #20 cover is by Jack Binder, whose style is similar to Schomburg's

The Green Hornet 15 cover is definitely not Schomburg, though I've seen it attributed to him.

 

[rjpb]

Villains in hooded robes were a staple of the shudder pulps in the 1930s, though usually more monk style than the pointed hat full face hoods associated with the Klan, though it should be noted that the Batman villain, The Monk, in Detective #31 had the latter type of hood. Anti-Klan stories were not strangers to the pulps as well. While the organization did reach a peak of popularity in the 1920s, it was by no means as accepted as segregation itself, had many outspoken opponents,  and membership dropped dramatically towards the end of the decade due to it's association with criminal activity and terrorism. It would not have been considered controversial to have villains in Klan like attire by the 1940s, especially if they aren't specifically noted as being the KKK itself.  While we today associate the image full hooded robed figures almost exclusively with the Klan, for much of the 20th century it was a visual motif for all manner of imagined secret organizations, and not so exclusively associated.

[Robot Man]

16 hours ago, rjpb said:

The Startling #20 cover is by Jack Binder, whose style is similar to Schomburg's

The Green Hornet 15 cover is definitely not Schomburg, though I've seen it attributed to him.

 

I believe the Green Hornet cover might be Kirby.

[Sqeggs]

16 hours ago, rjpb said:

Villains in hooded robes were a staple of the shudder pulps in the 1930s, though usually more monk style than the pointed hat full face hoods associated with the Klan, though it should be noted that the Batman villain, The Monk, in Detective #31 had the latter type of hood. Anti-Klan stories were not strangers to the pulps as well. While the organization did reach a peak of popularity in the 1920s, it was by no means as accepted as segregation itself, had many outspoken opponents,  and membership dropped dramatically towards the end of the decade due to it's association with criminal activity and terrorism. It would not have been considered controversial to have villains in Klan like attire by the 1940s, especially if they aren't specifically noted as being the KKK itself.  While we today associate the image full hooded robed figures almost exclusively with the Klan, for much of the 20th century it was a visual motif for all manner of imagined secret organizations, and not so exclusively associated.

I think this is probably it.  The KKK was not the force in the 1940s that it had been in the 1920s and I've never heard that comics that depicted it in an unfavorable light had problems being circulated in the South.  It's certainly possible, I suppose, particularly in the rural South that some newsstands would not have displayed some of these books.  From a strictly business point of view, though, that part of the market was probably fairly small and sales lost there may have been expected to be made up elsewhere because many of these covers are so striking that they probably attracted buyers.

[Sqeggs]

15 minutes ago, Robot Man said:

16 hours ago, rjpb said:

The Startling #20 cover is by Jack Binder, whose style is similar to Schomburg's

The Green Hornet 15 cover is definitely not Schomburg, though I've seen it attributed to him.

 

I believe the Green Hornet cover might be Kirby.

The yellow hooded figure in the center looks like Kirby's work.  GCD credits Schomburg and Avison jointly.  After having read that attribution, I can see Avison's work in there, although I wouldn't have thought of it on my own. 

[rjpb]

46 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

The yellow hooded figure in the center looks like Kirby's work.  GCD credits Schomburg and Avison jointly.  After having read that attribution, I can see Avison's work in there, although I wouldn't have thought of it on my own. 

All-New #4 and Speed #30 are attributed to Avison, and Green Hornet #15 and #16 look like the same artist, although they all look a little different from his signed Timely Cap covers.

[vaillant]

This discussion is great… I still regret not buying a book with the history of the KKK (in italian) that I stumbled upon awhile ago.

It was documented and very well written.

[Johnny545]

Bump because you can never have enough Schomburg and I didn't see this one posted:

[path4play]

On 7/20/2017 at 9:46 AM, walclark said:

Regardless of his religious affiliation, I think the OP's original question is interesting.  Of all the GA artists, many of whom worked at the same publishers as Schomburg, why was he seemingly the only one (with the exception of the Blue Beetle I posted) that depicted Nazis in hoods and robes?  We all know that emulation was commonplace, but no one else jumped on the bandwagon.

Perhaps is was as simple as amalgamating various evils?  A depiction of an uber-evil force if you will. 

Fiction House books have numerous non-Schomburg hooded evil bastards too: 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by path4play

[path4play]

43 minutes ago, Johnny545 said:

Bump because you can never have enough Schomburg and I didn't see this one posted:

In the market for a Subs 11 cover wink wink winkity wink..

Edited July 29, 2017 by path4play

[Johnny545]

Sub 11, is a truly great cover reposting because the image seemed to be showing up funny

[path4play]

More hooded fiends:

 

 

[path4play]

One of my personal top 10's

[Ameri]

On 7/20/2017 at 3:37 PM, vaillant said:

I would say that he was not depicting just "nazi" hooded figures, but hooded figures in general.
Also, the fact that he has such a rich cultural heritage is what makes it fascinating, as I said. And if you are jewish, faith is so intertwined with heritage and culture that is not an "affiliation".
Well, even if you are catholic is not an "affiliation", but the very source of your own inner life, and universal in its scope and longing.

+1. He was using robed figures in early 1940 and in 1939 with Daring Mystery 1. 

[vaillant]

 

13 hours ago, path4play said:

Perhaps is was as simple as amalgamating various evils?  A depiction of an uber-evil force if you will. 

Fiction House books have numerous non-Schomburg hooded evil bastards too: 

 

 

I agree, it’s very likely – and hooded figures lends themselves well in this sense.

Edited July 30, 2017 by vaillant

[telerites]

Not a comic but I saw this recently on an auction site.  I still cannot fathom why bigotry and racism exists and how items such as this were ever produced and today have a collectible market.   Sorry if my post shares too much emotion.

[vaillant]

I believe one has to understand the historical roots of racism: there were evidently complex reasons for which people convinced himself that persons could be "rated" from their ethnic character.
I recall that, not being american, I was impacted a lot by seeing the movie "Mississippi Burning".
The object in itself, as a colletible today, would be even cute, if not for the fact we still have the KKK as a "hidden shadow" reminding us xenophobia is something radically different from reasonable criticism (or thought). 

P.S. "Bigotry", in its specific religious meaning, has different roots. "Bigotry" as "short-sightedness"… goes hand-in-hand with arrogance and ignorance happily married, I believe.

[telerites]

1 hour ago, vaillant said:

I believe one has to understand the historical roots of racism: there were evidently complex reasons for which people convinced himself that persons could be "rated" from their ethnic character.
I recall that, not being american, I was impacted a lot by seeing the movie "Mississippi Burning".
The object in itself, as a colletible today, would be even cute, if not for the fact we still have the KKK as a "hidden shadow" reminding us xenophobia is something radically different from reasonable criticism (or thought). 

P.S. "Bigotry", in its specific religious meaning, has different roots. "Bigotry" as "short-sightedness"… goes hand-in-hand with arrogance and ignorance happily married, I believe.

You're missing my point, Claudio.  I did not say I do not understand it - I just can't fathom it, utterly senseless - not in my genetic makeup. 

[vaillant]

2 hours ago, telerites said:

You're missing my point, Claudio.  I did not say I do not understand it - I just can't fathom it, utterly senseless - not in my genetic makeup. 

Inversely, I say it's pretty difficult to understand (and this goes for the most varied outlooks in history) – and if I get it right (by "genetic makeup" you mean it's stranger to your experience and personality, I would say that we are all exposed to seductions of evil, in a way or the other. If I understood correctly, of course.