The invented Winnetou shitstorm: Chronology of a media failure

A lot of factual criticism that should be taken seriously

The core problem is that a narrative quickly took hold that Ravensburger only withdrew the book because they were put under pressure by a "shitstorm", because there was only criticism from "woke groups", because the criticism was "particularly loud" and the like. 

This narrative attempts to delegitimize the criticism of the film. Of course, if the criticism was not legitimate, the decision was wrong and is incomprehensible. The data shows quite clearly and without any doubt that there was definitely no "shitstorm", no "loud shouting from a minority of left-wing agitators" or anything like that. Yes, there was criticism, but it was quiet and, above all, objective. 

But the data also shows that after Ravensburger's decision, which is absolutely justifiable from a factual point of view, there was a clamor that is unparalleled in the history of shitstorms. And that is the reason why the case is "unworthy of a democracy", as we wrote above. Here, factual criticism is absolutely shouted down and delegitimized by lies. 

The graph is deliberately kept much flatter in order to put the ratios at least somewhat into perspective. In fact, the upper graph should be much higher: The values at the top range from 0 to 21,000, the lower ones from 0 to 260. The height of the lower graph should actually only be 1/10 as high. What you see here in the lower graph as an enlargement, so to speak, can be seen in the graph above as a tiny deflection. 

Here is just a small selection of the factual criticism: 

- At the end of June, the MDR podcast asked whether Karl May plays are still up to date.

- In an interview in Stern, Kendall Old Elk, one of the few Native Americans in Germany, speaks out clearly against the narrative surrounding Karl May. 

- Carmen Kwasny, chairwoman of theNative American Association of Germany, criticizes in an interview with Deutschlandfunk Kultur that "The Young Chief Winnetou" conveys numerous clichés. 

- Tyrone White, an indigenous person living in the Rhineland, says in the same interview that the film trivializes the history of the indigenous peoples of America for entertainment purposes. 

- And in another interview with Deutschlandfunk Kultur , ethnologist Markus Lindner asks what prevents screenwriters from making fictional books or films that are carefully researched.

- The ZEIT notes that the film brings "Apaches invented in Germany" into the present day without taking into account how the subject has changed since the last films in the 1960s: "Curious and loveless" and "in the spirit of the mini-playback show". 

- Even in the FAZ, where the progressive wind is not necessarily blowing, Claudius Seidl says that the narrative "may not be evil racism". But: "But it is stupid, provincial, ignorant and arrogant towards both: the history and reality of indigenous Americans." 

- Or the Frankfurter Rundschau tears the film apart in a movie review. And moviegoers have also given the film a very mixed response. 

- And the German Film and Media Rating Board (FBW) had classified the film as "particularly valuable". However, the decision was close and very controversial. Two out of three jury members described the film as a "kitschy, backward-looking play". And Karl May's original was "a lie that ignores the genocide of the Native Americans". The full justification with some of the fierce criticism can be found on the film rating page, but it is difficult to find. You have to scroll all the way down here and then click on the "Jury statement" tab. 

In her opinion, it is no longer acceptable in this day and age to make a film, and in particular a film for children and young people, in the spirit of the mythically charged and very clichéd Karl May "folklore". This film is a kitschy, backward-looking play that has nothing to do with reality. According to the jury members, Karl May's literary idyll in the land of origin of the indigenous peoples of North America is a lie that completely ignores the genocide of the Native Americans and the injustice inflicted on them by the white settlers' land grab and the destruction of their natural habitat. The setting chosen in the film, the portrayal of the indigenous people, the background music and the staging style would be in line with the kitschy Karl May films of the 1960s.

And what do those affected say?

Here, by the way, is a voice of this alleged "radical minority" and the agitators who want to dictate to the majority in Germany what they are allowed to read and watch.

The unbelievably infamous distortion of the facts in the media

I am sometimes stunned by the brazenness (or bottomless incompetence) with which editorial offices twist the facts into the opposite.

The Berliner Zeitung, for example, writes;

In the debate about the canceled Native American book "The Young Chief Winnetou", real Native Americans are now speaking out! Background: The publisher Ravensburger withdrew the book from sale a few days ago because accusations of racism had been raised in the social media. The criticism: cultural appropriation.

However, the publisher apparently did not consult members of the supposedly discriminated minority before making its decision. Because they don't mind the Winnetou book at all, but are annoyed by Ravensburger's withdrawal!

She copied that from the BILD newspaper again. BILD had asked Native American performers at the "El Dorado Templin" theme park. One of them: Kendall Old Elk (51). He told BILD: "I think this is an overreaction. The fact that the publisher has taken the books off the market - why? That's a bit too much of a good thing. Why do we have to put a label on every person? We are all human beings."

The point is: yes, he did say that. Only he said it in the context of a much longer interview, namely in STERN. And Kendall Old Elk is exactly the same man who appears directly above in Vode. And yes, he says the book shouldn't have been taken off the market straight away, but in terms of content he says exactly the opposite! 

Quote: "It would have been better to leave it alone. The work is part of a long tradition of material that would never have been published." And he means "the young chief Winnetou"!

Unfortunately, the article is behind the paywall. That's why other journalists can't do any research and only copy from BILD. I invested the EUR 2 to actually find out what he says. And that is, among other things:  

What if Ravensburger has not folded, but has simply "learned"?

There was some critical feedback on the Instagram channel and on Ravensburger's announcement on August 11. According to schwaebisch.de, which was the first to report on August 19, there were 180 comments. This is also far from a "shitstorm" - and it came from Ravenburger fans. One of the criticisms was that the film portrays racist stereotypes that have their origins in colonialism. And that is undeniable. After all, Winnetou is "an account of the time when the white man built the path for the fire horse through the hunting grounds of the red man." (Quote from the official movie trailer for Winnetou 1 from 1963) 

What if Ravensburger did what might be reasonable with all this criticism and took it seriously? And that's exactly what Ravensburger wrote (see the Instagram post above): 

"We wouldn't make the same decision to publish the titles today. We made a mistake at the time and we can assure you: We will learn from it!"

And that's exactly what it was in the end. Ravensburger listened to its customers and others in the market and realized that it was not a good decision. 

And now comes the point: listening, learning and changing your mind is not something that needs to be massively criticized. Basically, this is to be commended. But for the majority of people in Germany, this is absolutely not an option: "No, we won't capitulate!"

And instead of taking Ravensburger at their word, everyone accuses them of self-censorship, caving in and giving in. So yes, maybe there's more to it than that. Maybe Ravensburger was lying and they really were afraid. But there's no evidence of that - they said otherwise, and there's no evidence of external pressure.