Were Early Cartoons Racist?

[Eutychus]

re : http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=69932

I'm attempting to move this over here from the Pit because I think there is a discusssion somehwere here.

Racial stereotypes in quite a few of Disney's cartoons and now recently (as stated in the above thread) from Warner Brothers cartoons have begun to be excised as being offensive. One of Disney's favorite gags was to have someone get covered in blackface by some means or another (falling soot, etc.) and then exclaim "Mammy!" There were no overt racial characters in Disney's films as there were in Warners, with the exception of Mammy Two-Shoes, an Aunt Jemima type who showed up in a few Silly Symphonies and was echoed in the character of Mammy Two-Slippers in later Tom and Jerry shorts.

I'm a bit more sensitive to this question after having watched Spike Lee's film "Bamboozled" yesterday and seeing how ingrained the stereotypes might have become. I use the word might because I'm not completely convinced that we see them as stereotypes as much nowadays, and can separate the historical failure of racial sensitivity from our own current feelings. Lee himself has been accused of using stereotypes (most blatantly in "Do the Right Thing") in order to get a point across.)

So, given this, question 1 : how far does a racial stereotype need to go before it becomes an offensive stereotype? Question 2 : Are we as a society mature enough that we can see these cartoons as the historical documents that they are and separate the racial slurs from our own feelings? Are these edits really necessary nowadays?

[Edited by Eutychus55 on 05-06-2001 at 03:26 AM]

[gadgetgirl]

I think we have gotten a little too polically correct for our own good. Everyone gets so offended so easily, just relax.
Bugs is part of our popular cultural history, good or bad. Can't we just see it as a little snipit of our past and take it in context? And why not use these cartoons to show our kids how far we have come with race relations?
As for the question when does a sterotype become an offensive sterotype, I think when the stereotype is negative it automatically becomes offensive.

[Eutychus]

Originally posted by gadgetgirl
Can't we just see it as a little snipit of our past and take it in context?

That's really the question I had. Are we mature enough as a society to do that?

I think when the stereotype is negative it automatically becomes offensive.

Which also begs the question, is there such a thing as a positive stereotype?

[gadgetgirl]

The "if you are a woman you can cook" streotype seems positive on the surface.

[Mockingbird]

I just saw a Screwy Squirrel cartoon on Cartoon Network last week that had a stupid indian in it. I wondered in today's society what people would make of this.

After reading what Warner Brothers was doing with Bugs and not showing 12 cartoons on the basis that they were considered racist seemed a bit dumb. Better to show the prejudices of the past then to hide them and act as if they never existed.

These were the beliefs of another time, and I think we need to remember where we came from, how far we have come, and how far we still need to go.

Are they next going to stop showing all the Bugs Bunny cartoons where he cross dresses because they feel that it will offend transvestites?

[gadgetgirl]

Amen Hastur.

[december]

By today's standards, early cartoon were racist. I can remember watching them.

According to a biography of irving Berlin, he began writing songs in the early the part of the 20th century that were all about ethnic stereotypes. I cringed reding xome of the lyrics. Apparently that was a popular genre at the time.

Of course, this is a funciton of changing times. No doubt some of today's artistic stuff will violate the mores of the future.

[casdave]

I think that we must consider those to whom such material was aimed.

Adults can, usually, see such stuff and are well capable of understanding the historical aspect but I somehow think that children in the 5 to 12 year age range are more vulnerable to being unduly influenced.

You can talk of parental guidance but let's face it, many if not most, children have tv sets in their own rooms and watch tv largely unsupervised.

I grew up in a time when racism was far more prevalent and although I am part asian other children were very quick to glue the cartoon stereotype to the nearest thing that fitted, so in turn I became, Sambo, Golly, Momma, Liza(despite being male) and anything else that was around. Needless to say I grew up fighting.

One could say that the outlook of my contemporaries was tinged by the pervasive and often unconscious racism of society, such as comedians, local news reports, even parents complaining about the number of black artists on the very few pop music shows at the time.

It shows to me though how easily children can be influenced in unexpected ways as I'm sure that most parents even then would have been disturbed had they seen their darlings acting in such a fashion.

[tourbot]

Bugs is part of our popular cultural history, good or bad. Can't we just see it as a little snipit of our past and take it in context? And why not use these cartoons to show our kids how far we have come with race relations?


I can take it in context. I could even see discussing it with my children. Without the discussion, how would a child know that the cartoons weren't made last week? And I think there are some adults who would intentionally ignore the context as well, or agree with the any racist sentiments and pass that message on to their children. Basically it depends on where and when these cartoons are being shown whether it is appropriate or not.


The "if you are a woman you can cook" streotype seems positive on the surface.


Except it implies that you shouldn't expect men to be able to cook, which is a negative stereotype. If it didn't imply that, it would carry the same meaning as "if you are human you can cook" or "if you are a woman, you have toes". It is the implication of the quality being unique to one group that makes it a stereotype, which implies that non-group members do not share that quality.

And I'd bet you could find some women who think the "if you are a woman you can cook" stereotype is negative, too.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Eutychus55
re : http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=69932

I'm attempting to move this over here from the Pit because I think there is a discusssion somehwere here.

Racial stereotypes in quite a few of Disney's cartoons and now recently (as stated in the above thread) from Warner Brothers cartoons have begun to be excised as being offensive. One of Disney's favorite gags was to have someone get covered in blackface by some means or another (falling soot, etc.) and then exclaim "Mammy!" There were no overt racial characters in Disney's films as there were in Warners, with the exception of Mammy Two-Shoes, an Aunt Jemima type who showed up in a few Silly Symphonies and was echoed in the character of Mammy Two-Slippers in later Tom and Jerry shorts.

From what I've seen, Warner was the...nastiest...of the lot. From what you've described, Disney (and MGM, with Tom and Jerry) made blackface jokes, had Al Jolsen references and had Mammy characters. Warner got...mean spirited. Really mean spirited. Lazy, shiftless, superstitous blacks that were interested in sneaking out of work, gambling, eatin' watermelon. In some of the few cartoons that blacks were featured in (11 in total), they invariably had slack jaws, big lips, they shuffled when they walked, slurred their words and were DUMB. Not Elmer Fudd-type dumb, but retarded-type dumb. Mammy Two-footwear types were also stereotypes, but nowhere near in the class of truly offensive stuff that's in the Censored 11 (http://www.toonzone.net/looney/ltcuts/ltcuts11.html) Warner Brothers cartoons which are orders of magnitude more vile. (See link for some pictures) I've seen "Sunday Go To Meetin' Time", "All This and Rabbit Stew", "Angel Puss" and a few others and frankly, they seem like Klan propaganda (although Klan propaganda wouldn't have allowed the black characters their one redeeming feature: being Christian.)

I don't agree with Warner's position that the famous Censored 11 (or Cartoon Network's additional 11) should be buried and forgotten. If I ran Warner or the Cartoon Network, I would get someone like Spike Lee, who apparently understands the history to provide a context and show the cartoons at a time when adults could watch, but kids would be less likely to. Some of the Censored 11 are masterpieces, despite the racisim ("Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs" is easily as good as "What's Opera Doc" and while I've never seen it, "Clean Pastures" is supposed to be a fascinating and funny look at early jazz musicians and I'd love to see it) and should be shown. But not in a regular daily cartoon lineup. And probably not to young kids who won't understand the context.

Regarding edits: I don't see the point of editing out Al Jolsen(sp) blackface references. Most kids won't get it, anyway. But there're a number of Tom and Jerrys where, after an explosion the character turns into a "pickaninny" character (hair standing out in braided spikes, tied with ribbons) that's more problematic for me. Frankly, I'd say: simply pull these few cartoons from the regular kids lineup and show 'em only "after hours" with a proper historical context.

Fenris

[wring]

were they racist? Seem to have been - but in the context of the times they were made - where racism was generally accepted.

Should they be destroyed? No, I think that they demonstrate both how far we've gotten and how far we have yet to go.

should they be treated the same as all the other ones? No, again, for I think clearly they aren't quite the same, since only a few had overt racist material in it. I recall some of the 'war years' ones, not all of them were racist (tho' I did find them decidedly less funny than my personal fav's - the Rabbit Seasoning type with Bugs, Daffy & Elmer, and the Abomidable Snowman one)

As Fenris suggests, these have a place in our history. I remember cringing when I saw Peter Pan again as an adult. And they can be lead to productive discussions. OTOH, I don't feel they belong in the routine Sat am line up.

[Max Torque]

I agree that much of the material probably shouldn't be shown to children, but I wish there were some way or place where we old farts could see the cartoons we grew up with. Problem is, Warner/Disney/Hanna-Barbera/whoever have a very valid concern that, even if they make the old 'toons available only on home video, there'll be a public outcry that could damage their earnings in other areas. Until they're put in a museum somewhere, I think we're all screwed.

Disney was just as bad as Warner, they've just done a better cover-up job....The Song of the South likely will never be seen again, but at one time, it DID exist. Also, Fantasia, despite the "fully restored" label on the DVD, went through some big-league cuts, as this site (http://www.evernotice.com/fantasia.html) discusses:

Here's an interesting tidbit that many people don't know about. There was a shot in Fantasia that was censored because it was extremely racist. The shot was of a beautiful blonde human/horse and a black human/horse that was cleaning the white one's hoof. The black one was portrayed as the white one's slave and was also portrayed as ugly, with outrageously big lips, bright red freckles, and hair that stuck out everywhere in yellow ribbons. --Rachel

Fantasia, upon its video release, was edited for content. In the pastoral sequence, several scenes were cut out or tightly cropped because of black pickaninny Centaurettes. In particular, one named "Sunflower" in the production notes is seen several times pinning flora and primpimg white centaurettes. Its obvious when you look for it in tight shots. One scene when the centaurettes are parading down a fairway for their suitors is simply reversed for timing purposes by the editors of the video. The only black centaurettes that made the '90's cut were a fanner and gourd holder of Bacchus as he parades onto a later scene. Most likely because they are not portayed in a stereotypical manner. --Marahute

Has anybody noticed that some quite racist things were left in. The centaurettes that are SERVANTS to Bacchus are black and have zebra bodies instead of horse bodies. If you pause the film or play it slowly, you can also see that they have big lips, flat wide noses, big gold hoop earrings, and are larger in the chest area than the other centaurettes. Talk about a stereotype !!! --staceypooh

[tomndebb]

The interesting thing to me has been the way in which some art has been able to transcend its obvious racism. (I know there have been some loopy complaints about Huckleberry Finn, but those loud complaints are the exception.) I was surprised, for example, to find Eddie Murphy remaking Dr. Dolittle, moreso when I discovered that he was heading the project, not simply accepting a role from his agent to be the "black" Dr. Dolittle. I was then very surprised to see in an interview he gave that he wanted to do the movie because he had enjoyed the books as a kid.

The books, for those of you who have not had the opportunity to read them, are a genuine delight, but they have some racist passages that made me uncomfortable as a pre-teen almost 40 years ago. In particular, the doctor provides an African prince with cold cream to make him white, knowing that the cold cream will wear/wash off after the doctor has made his exit.

The prince figures in at least two of the books in the series and, if Murphy enjoyed the books, he had to have encountered those passages. Despite that, he was able to get past that aspect of Lofting's works and still found the stories captivating enough to want to bring the basic stories to the screen.

[Biggirl]

Context really is everything. We have a 5 hour long tape of old cartoons. Among them are a few that feature Lil Audrey and her "mammy". My children, who were six or seven at the time, just assumed that mammy was Lil Audrey's actual mother.

I'd hate to see these cartoons distroyed and why shouldn't our children watch them? Should we keep this part of history a big dark secret from them? These attitudes did exist and I don't like the idea of Warner Bros. being able to just get rid of those cartoons and pretending it didn't happen.

[jaimest]

I'm surprised they don't ban Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam cartoons, with all that gunplay they contain.
I think they should not show the most viley racist cartoons, the ones that show "black" charcters with exaggerated features, and portray them as dimwits. Maybe they could be preserved for history's sake, but not shown to children.
But I hope they don't eliminate the ones that are just politically incorrect. For instance, I don't think I've seen a "Speedy Gonzales" cartoon on the Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc. Yet I swear I've see them dubbed into Spanish all the time (I live in a place thats 80% Hispanic). It's not so much the "aggrieved group" that take offense but the politically correct guardians of taste that do.
Come to think of it, I haven't seen the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or Abbot and Costello on TV in a long time too. Are those shows insensitive as well? Or just too old. When I was a kid I preferred those shows to the garbage that was made at the time for children (cartoons to promote action figures).

[rjung]

Originally posted by Eutychus55
Originally posted by gadgetgirl
Can't we just see it as a little snipit of our past and take it in context?

That's really the question I had. Are we mature enough as a society to do that?
IMO, no. Sure, there are some folks who will see such cartoons as an embarassing part of our past. But there are still enough folks in society who are willing to see such things and accept it as truth.

On the other hand, supressing/destroying/censoring those old cartoons isn't any better.

Maybe what we need is a long, boring disclaimer before those old toons are shown? Something like "The cartoon you are about to see is shown in its unaltered form. It contains crude and erroneous depictions of women and minorities, because the people who made these cartoons didn't know any better."

[Baker]

Has anyone else read a book titled "Cartoon Confidential"? Don't know the name of the author. I once saw it on the bargain rack at Barnes & Noble and have regretted not buying it. It mentions the black centaur girls(which I also referenced in the other thread) plus the incident with Elmer's dog and the flea. It also talked about Betty Boop and some incidents of what would now be referred to as sexual harassment(something about her boss's hands on her breasts!) I think I will try and find it on an out-of-print source, because it sounds like a great sourcebook for this debate.

[gadgetgirl]

Originally posted by tourbot

I can take it in context. I could even see discussing it with my children. Without the discussion, how would a child know that the cartoons weren't made last week? And I think there are some adults who would intentionally ignore the context as well, or agree with the any racist sentiments and pass that message on to their children. Basically it depends on where and when these cartoons are being shown whether it is appropriate or not.[/B]

exactly my point.

And I'd bet you could find some women who think the "if you are a woman you can cook" stereotype is negative, too. [/B]

that's why I said it "seemed positive on the surface"
I think we are on the same side of this one.

[Torgo]

Originally posted by rjung
Originally posted by Eutychus55
Originally posted by gadgetgirl
Can't we just see it as a little snipit of our past and take it in context?

That's really the question I had. Are we mature enough as a society to do that?
IMO, no. Sure, there are some folks who will see such cartoons as an embarassing part of our past. But there are still enough folks in society who are willing to see such things and accept it as truth.

On the other hand, supressing/destroying/censoring those old cartoons isn't any better.

Maybe what we need is a long, boring disclaimer before those old toons are shown? Something like "The cartoon you are about to see is shown in its unaltered form. It contains crude and erroneous depictions of women and minorities, because the people who made these cartoons didn't know any better."

That's one of the better ideas I've heard. Too bad the ninnies at the Cartoon Network don't share the same sentiment.

<thread hijack>

Is it okay to laugh at these cartoons? I feel pangs of guilt when I shoot coffee through my nose at Droopy's "Hey blackie...any more babes in there?" line (Droopy fans know which 'toon I mean).

<end thread hijack>

[CalMeacham]

Yes, early cartoons were racist, and sexist, and anti-gay -- these were the prevailing attitudes when they were made, and they are thus fosilized in the cartoons. This is the nature of anything recorded. It's been this way for a long time. So when you read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court you can see that it is clearly anti-Catholic. It's not rabidly, propagandistically anti-Catholic, but it's clear that Twain was philosophically opposed to the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Yet ACYIKAC is not banned -- I've never even seen it in one of those "banned books" displays, despite the presence of Hucklerry Finn. (I suspect this anti-Catholicism explain why there has never yet been an accurate dramatization of ACYIKAC, thought).

Sax Rohmer's "Fu Manchu" books are downright racist, with their portrayal of asian criminal masterminds bent on subduing the West. Rohmer's asian mastermind was copied by the pulps (Robert E. Howard's "Skull Face", Flash Gordon's "Ming the Merciless", and countless others), and appeared in scads of movies.

The above are still with us. Unless you intend to rewrite the past, 1984-style, you can't eliminate past errors and prejudices.

The current interest comes from the elimination of some Bugs Bunny Cartoons. I'd like to know which ones, and why. All I've heard is that one of them had an skimo joke in it. The worst of the Bugs Bunny cartoons were pulled long ago -- "All Thi and Rabbit Stew, with its embarassing black caricature, "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" with its anti-Japanese digs. I don't mind seeing these cartoons not in distribution -- they're embarassing today, their time has gone, and they are mainly wached by children, who might imbibe prejudices better left alone by watching them. I should point out that they aren't banned -- saw them at film festivals.

As for Disney, they are a private house and can "sit on" heir past mistakes f they wish.

Has anyone else read a book titled "Cartoon Confidential"? Don't know the name of the author. I once saw it on the bargain rack at Barnes & Noble and have regretted not buying it. It mentions the black centaur girls(which I also referenced in the other thread) plus the incident with Elmer's dog and the flea. It also talked about Betty Boop and some incidents of what would now be referred to as sexual harassment(something about her boss's hands on her breasts!) I think I will try and find it on an out-of-print source, because it sounds like a great sourcebook for this debate.


I have the book Cartoon Confidential. One of its chief virtues is that it reproduces a shot of the "pickaninny" centaurette from Fantasia. Like the racial stereotypes in the Warner Brothers cartoons, this one is embarassing. It was "cut" by re-framing the shot long before the video release -- it was gone by the time I first saw Fantasia in the early seventies. And I just want to say, for the record, that I don't find the remaining "zebra" centaurs offensive -- they're no more servile than the other centaurs.(All of them are working for Bacchus in one way or another.) They are dignified and exotic -- that "zebra" striping is a neat touch.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by CalMeacham
The current interest comes from the elimination of some Bugs Bunny Cartoons. I'd like to know which ones, and why. All I've heard is that one of them had an skimo joke in it. The worst of the Bugs Bunny cartoons were pulled long ago -- "All Thi and Rabbit Stew, with its embarassing black caricature, "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" with its anti-Japanese digs. I don't mind seeing these cartoons not in distribution -- they're embarassing today, their time has gone, and they are mainly wached by children, who might imbibe prejudices better left alone by watching them. I should point out that they aren't banned -- saw them at film festivals.

Cal, if you've seen any of the "Censored 11" (only one of which is on the Cartoon Network list of Bugs Cartoons it won't show) at film festivals, you've been watching bootlegs. Warner has adamantly forbidden any distribution of the "Censored 11" since 1967.

Regarding the list of Bugs cartoons that Cartoon Network isn't going to show, I got this list from Mobo in the Pit thread, but I'm adding to it. My comments will be in italics

1.Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt (Native Americans)

2.All This And Rabbit Stew (blacks-ironically, Beck's book doesn't mention the hunter is black) Since this is the only one on the list that's one of the famous "Censored 11", I don't believe that Cartoon Network could have the rights to show this even if they wanted to. And even by my very un-PC standards, this one is a truly, TRULY ugly cartoon. (With some very funny Bob Clampett gags)

3.Any Bonds Today? (Bugs imitates Jolson) Not showing this one is stupid. It's an important bit of history, it's one of the few "fat Elmer" cartoons (where they tried to make Elmer look like the guy who did his voice) and the "Mammy, dontcha love me?" bit that Bugs does is short. If they felt they had to, they could easily cut it

4.What's Cookin' Doc? (clip from "Hiawatha" shown)

5.Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips (wartime Japanese) While historically signifigant, and extremely funny, the part at the end where Bugs is calling the Japanese "Monkey Face", "Slant Eyes" etc is a bit over the top. I can imagine the reaction of a Chinese or Japanese American who saw this in the theaters when it was released. But boy is it a good cartoon.

6.Herr Meets Hare (wartime Nazi/Germans) I don't understand the banning of this one. It makes Nazis look bad. Why is that a problem? And the Goering as Sigfried on the fat pony bit is sides-hurting-from-laughing-too-much funny.

7.Which is Witch? (African witch doctor)

8.A Feather in His Hare (Native Americans)

9.Frigid Hare (Eskimos) Bugs calls the Eskimo "Baboon Face". I had no idea that Innuit people were more sensitive to being called "baboon face" than any other group. :rolleyes: This seems hypersensitive.

10.Bushy Hare (Aborigines/blacks) I dunno. I haven't seen this one in decades and I can still remember the interchange between Bugs and the Aborigine ("Unga-Bunga-BUNGA!" says the Aborigine. "Oh yeah?" replies Bugs "Unga-Bunga-Bunga-Binga-Binga-Bunga-BunnnnnnnnnnGA!"...The Aborignie then goes nuts). This one seems like hypersensitivity to me.

11.Horse Hare (Native Americans)

12.Mississippi Hare (Civil War-era blacks)

Keep in mind, just 'cause they're not showing these 12 doesn't mean the remaing 350(? Maybe) cartoons aren't cut.
I guarantee that when "Southern Fried Hare" shows up, the hysterical 'slave beating' scene (see previous thread for detailed description) won't be there. And I still commend Cartoon Network for restoring MOST of the WB cartoons.


As for Disney, they are a private house and can "sit on" heir past mistakes f they wish.
I also don't understand Disney's reluctance to show it's wartime cartoons. Even by today's standards, making Nazi's look bad is GOOD right? So why the reluctance to show some of it's history?

Fenris

[Katisha]

Originally posted by jaimest
Come to think of it, I haven't seen the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or Abbot and Costello on TV in a long time too. Are those shows insensitive as well? Or just too old.

AMC -- or one of the classic-movie networks -- shows the Three Stooges. They have Leslie Nielsen as host and everything.

(And I remember Nickelodeon showing Speedy Gonzales cartoons when they aired Looney Tunes, but that was years ago.)

Cal -- the cartoons in question are listed in the thread linked to in the OP. To borrow from a post made by mobo85:

1. Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt (Native Americans)
2. All This And Rabbit Stew (blacks-ironically, Beck's book doesn't mention the hunter is black)
3. Any Bonds Today? (Bugs imitates Jolson)
4. What's Cookin' Doc? (clip from "Hiawatha" shown)
5. Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips (wartime Japanese)
6. Herr Meets Hare (wartime Nazi/Germans)
7. Which is Witch? (African witch doctor)
8. A Feather in His Hare (Native Americans)
9. Frigid Hare (Eskimos)
10. Bushy Hare (Aborigines/blacks)
11. Horse Hare (Native Americans)
12. Mississippi Hare (Civil War-era blacks)

(Also, I loved Connecticut Yankee, and I'm Catholic, though not particularly devout, I must admit. :))

As for the cartoons themselves: the prevailing opinion seems to be that they should be shown "after hours," with the historical context made clear -- as historical documents, I guess. I can't find much to disagree with there.

(Eutychus -- how was Bamboozled? That one's on my list of Movies That Look Intriguing.)

[Katisha]

Dysfractionation strikes! Fenris got to the list before I could -- and with better commentary, too. ;)

[Manda JO]

I am gonna repeat myself, since the discussion seems to have moved over here. I think that seeing the casual racism in things like these WB cartoons shows the insidous nature of racism better than any race riot footage. It is really easy to let ourselves believe that the racists of the past were all 3-toothed drooling rednecks who pulled out the lynching rope at the drop of the hat. That is a legacy that it is easy to distance ourselves from. But really really nice people used to be racists: people who would never have dreamed of whipping someone, or hanging them, or anything that extreme, had no problem laughing at these sorts of charecitures. We can console ourselves that we wouldn't have participated in lynchings had we lived in the 40s--most people didn't, after all--but we probably would not have seen anything wrong with these cartoons. Being a basically good person is no protection against falling into the patterns of bigoted assumptions, and I think that things like these early cartoons bring that point home much better than somber documentaries that focus on the very worst atrocities.

[Eutychus]

Originally posted by Katisha
Eutychus -- how was Bamboozled? That one's on my list of Movies That Look Intriguing.

It was good, if you like Lee's work. It comes across as rather his version of "Natural Born Killers" except about race instead of violence, in that he takes things to such an extreme and smacks you over the head with it to make his point. The reason I tied this in was because Lee uses scenes from some of the 'toons mentioned here in a montage at the end to make his point. I can agree that some of it is offensive, but some is historical as well. You can't show blacks as slaves without offending some people, but that was the historical reality. Nonetheless, I agree that they should still be shown because most of them are important in the history of animation, at least, but with disclaimers that show that they were made in a different era with different ways of thinking.

Two other thought points :

1 : Someone alluded above to Speedy Gonzales, and I wonder if there is some selective censorship happening with whoever complains the most. You almost never hear latinos complaining about the lazy Mexican mice in those 'toons, and they are rarely edited.

2 : If aliens ever do come to earth, will we be having this discussion 100 years down the road about Marvin the Martian? ;)

[Baker]

All the Martians will have to do is blast us with the Iludium Q-37 Explosive Space Modulator!

[CalMeacham]

Fenris and Katisha -- thanks for the lists.

As for Warner Bothers banning the cartoons since 1967, I anm surprised. I would never have guessed they were bootlegs -- the cartoons I've seen were often of superb quality. Are you SURE they didn't make exceptions?

There are plenty of other examples out there that aren't banned. I think Leonard Maltin's Cartoons for Big Kids has some examples of poking fun at gays, for instance. After they released the movie Dick Tracy about nine years ago, I understand that Disney tried running the old 1960s Dick Tracy cartoons. These featured characters like Joe Jitsu (Japanese detective) and Go-Go Gomez (like Speedy Gonzalez, a fast Mexican -- this is sort of reverse racism, since the joke is on the supposed lethargy of the Mexicans). They also featured a British Bulldog named Hemlock Holmes, but I never heard of any complaints about him. In any case, Disney was forced to pull the cartoons in short order because of complaints, or so I've heard. Actually, the cartoon detectives were invariably clever and successful, but I suppose the reverse racism of Gomez and the buck-toothed portrayal of Joe were a little extreme.


For myself, I wondered about Neil Simon's (Neil Simon's!) portrayal of the hispanic maid in the movie Seems Like Old Times circa 1980. I still think this one's going to look insulting and embarassing in the future.

The insidious thing about these cartoons is that they show us NOT what was considered vile racism, but what was considered the norm, even harmless joking. Read the book 1939 -- the Lost World of the Fair and marvel at the African exhibits, or the section in The Big Book of Hoaxes (or is it the one on Freaks?) about the Fair exhibit "Darkest Africa". This stuff was supposed to be EDUCATIONAL! It's the hidden assumptions of Normal Decent people, rather than the rantings of the rabid, that can do the most harm.

[gobear]

Re: Mention of old Three Stooges shorts

I'm sure that AMC has a list of Stooges shorts they won't show. I remember seeing a couple of Stooges shorts set in a haunted house with Mantan Moreland bugging out his eyes at the "spookeses." Offensive stuff, yet also really funny, like the comedy routines lifted by Spike Lee from early 20th century black comedians and used in Bamboozled. I was simultaneously laughing and cringing watching the antics of Mantan and Sleep'n'Eat.

Back in the day, dialects and ethnic humor were very much in fashion, so you had comedy routines aimed at Italians, Jews, Poles, Irish, Scots, and whoever else just got off the boat. Blacks weren't being singled out. I also think that you have to bring discernment into play. Some comedy, like Stepin Fetchit's routines, were demeaning and based on mocking blacks as being slow-witted subhumans laughingly protected and tolerated by their genial white masters. Other
comics, like Amos and Andy, employed universal comedy archetypes (the straight man and the clown, the braggart exposed, the fast-talking conman who gets caught in his own schemes) that would be just as funny if the comics hadn't played in blackface.

It's hard for me to become indignant about the endemic racism in movies and cartoons 70 years ago when in 2001 I can watch network TV and see that the criminals on cop shows are predominantly played by black and Hispanic actors, while the lawyers and cops are played by white actors. I'm not at all sure that our era is any more enlightened than previous generations. Robert Townsend's pointed satire on racial sterotypes in entertainment, Hollywood Shuffle, was released in 1987, and I don't think we've made much progress since then.

I think the PC Posse has gone too far. Some cartoons, like Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves, should not be shown to children, but I don't think they should be expunged forever. Possibly CN or Warner could use those old cartoons as part of a program about the history of racial sterotypes in general and how viewers should be aware of how comedy can demean other people.

However, cartoons that have black or Hispanic characters should not be censored for that reason alone. Bushy Hare is hilarious and IMHO does not mock Aborigines as a group. The humor in Speedy Gonzalez cartoons does not stem from the character's ethnicity. You might as well say the the SG cartoons also discriminate against mice. The humor comes from Speedy being fast and smart and the cat's being
slow and stupid. The cartoons would work just as well if Speedy were Anglo.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by CalMeacham
Fenris and Katisha -- thanks for the lists.

As for Warner Bothers banning the cartoons since 1967, I anm surprised. I would never have guessed they were bootlegs -- the cartoons I've seen were often of superb quality. Are you SURE they didn't make exceptions?
Well, I know Warner doesn't make exceptions, but after checking around a bit, apparently the situation is somewhat more complicated than I thought: *some* Warner cartoons have entered the public domain due to Warner's neglect of the copyright (they didn't renew something on some of the cartoons...and I'm using the term "copyright" loosely.)

Some of the "Censored 11" are in the public domain. The only one I could confirm was that "All This and Rabbit Stew" is PD, but it's likely that more of them are. Despite this, Warner will not allow it's prints to be shown from what I've read. I've never seen a clean copy of, say "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss": some copies are more watchable than others, but I've never seen pristine copies <sigh>.


The insidious thing about these cartoons is that they show us NOT what was considered vile racism, but what was considered the norm, even harmless joking. Read the book 1939 -- the Lost World of the Fair and marvel at the African exhibits, or the section in The Big Book of Hoaxes (or is it the one on Freaks?) about the Fair exhibit "Darkest Africa". This stuff was supposed to be EDUCATIONAL! It's the hidden assumptions of Normal Decent people, rather than the rantings of the rabid, that can do the most harm.

Big Book of Freaks, I believe.

I understand that "Uncle Tom"/"Aunt Jemima"/"Pickaninny" stereotypes were considered harmless and even today I can watch cartoons with 'em, realize they're wrong and still enjoy the cartoon, but I have trouble coping with the idea that...how to say this....non-bedsheet wearing people considered the vicious stuff in "Angel Puss" or "Rabbit Stew" to be acceptable in polite company. (Obviously it was given the theatrical release, but....!!!)

And dammit Cal, you just cost me money: "1939 -- The Lost World of the Fair" sounded so cool that I just ordered a copy. ;)

Fenris

[CalMeacham]

Fenris:
I've never seen a clean copy of, say "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss": some copies are more watchable than others, but I've never seen pristine copies <sigh>.



I'm not bragging, 'cause I don't think I've done anything difficult, but I've seen gorgeous copies of "Coal Black and the Sebbin Dwarves" on numerous occasions. Heck I'm sure it's available on videotape -- maybe even DVD by now. Look in The Whole Toon Catalog for starters (Facets Multi-media, 1517 West Fullerton Ave, Chicago. (800) 331-6197. They probably have a website by now.)

Coal Black, by Bob Clampett, is infuriating -- the animation is goddam gorgeous, the pace is frenetic, the sweep is intoxicating, and it's incredibly funny. It's also cramed full of the most insulting, gross stereotypes imaginable. It's hard to believe the piling on" of racial stereotypes wasn't intentional -- there are so damned many of them coming at you one after another. One might argue, by way f itigation, that Clampett was doing this to make fun of the stereotypes themselves. But you feel guilty laughing at them. If I were black I'm sure I'd be insulted.So what do you do with a flick like his? Show it at adults-only midnight shows, I guess.

We've mentioned arner's and Disney, but all of the studios were guilty of it. Walter Lantz made "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B", using the 1940s song -- but all the soldiers are black, and hackneyed. MGM has cut the ffnsive stereotypes out of its cartoons, sometimes with snip, sometimes (as with "Mammy Two Shoes" from the "Tom and Jerry" cartoons) by re-animating.

[tracer]

I'm surprised that the cartoon "Uncle Tom's Cabaña" appears on neither the Warner Censored 11 list, nor on the list of cartoons Cartoon Network won't show.

[Baker]

If "Frigid Hare" IS on the Censored 11 list how come it was on the Cartoon Network within the last two years? I've got it on my cartoon tapes which I recorded from that television channel.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Baker
If "Frigid Hare" IS on the Censored 11 list how come it was on the Cartoon Network within the last two years? I've got it on my cartoon tapes which I recorded from that television channel.

The confusion is that there're two sets of cartoons that aren't being shown. Cartoon Network has decided not to show 12 Bugs Bunnys in it's JuneBugs marathon (where they intend to show every remaining Bugs cartoon). One of the 12 that the Cartoon Network has chosen not to show is "Frigid Hare".

The "Censored 11" refer to 11 cartoons that Warner won't allow to be released. More info can be found at the link I put in a previous post. The only cartoon that's on both lists is "All This And Rabbit Stew" which is both funny and very ugly.

(I feel like drawing a Venn Diagram) :D

Fenris

[Fenris]

Originally posted by CalMeacham
I'm not bragging, 'cause I don't think I've done anything difficult, but I've seen gorgeous copies of "Coal Black and the Sebbin Dwarves" on numerous occasions. Heck I'm sure it's available on videotape -- maybe even DVD by now. Look in The Whole Toon Catalog for starters (Facets Multi-media, 1517 West Fullerton Ave, Chicago. (800) 331-6197. They probably have a website by now.)
I've never heard of 'em. Their website just tells you to call for a catalogue. Which I'll be doing tomorrow! Thanks for the tip.:)

Coal Black, by Bob Clampett, is infuriating -- the animation is goddam gorgeous, the pace is frenetic, the sweep is intoxicating, and it's incredibly funny. I read somewhere (and I agree) that it would take almost 15 years to equal it's imaginative style and sophistication in "What's Opera Doc".

It's also cramed full of the most insulting, gross stereotypes imaginable. It's hard to believe the piling on" of racial stereotypes wasn't intentional -- there are so damned many of them coming at you one after another.
I agree, and I've been meaning to ask: I've never heard the stereotype that Blacks can't resist dice except in Warner cartoons. Am I sheltered, or was this some weird Warner thing?

Fenris

[A Friend of the Devil]

Originally posted by Eutychus55
re : http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=69932
So, given this, question 1 : how far does a racial stereotype need to go before it becomes an offensive stereotype? Question 2 : Are we as a society mature enough that we can see these cartoons as the historical documents that they are and separate the racial slurs from our own feelings? Are these edits really necessary nowadays?

[Edited by Eutychus55 on 05-06-2001 at 03:26 AM]

To answer question 1, any stereotype, racist or otherwise, doesn't have to go very far at all before it becomes offensive to someone. We have thin skins today, and corporations have become very sensitive to this type of accusation.

With respect to question 2, part A, I suspect that we are not mature enough to do this. People (as a general group) have a very poor track record of being able to contemplate things in their context, but instead are conditioned today to make snap judgements using today's "enlightened" veiwpoints.

These cartoons, movies, books etc. are valuable in thier own right when they can be viewed and discussed as reflecting popular opinions and cultural perceptions. The "offensive" ones can be effective tools in demonstrating what is wrong with the portrayal of the characters.

An often overlooked point is that all of the characters in any of these cartoons are intended as larger-than-life caricatures. Characters and situations are exagerated beyond the point of reality, and I think that most kids catch onto this quite quickly. Even the youngest viewer knows that the Coyote really can't fall off a thousand foot cliff and walk away with scratches. C'mon, let's face it - most cartoons have all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer. If you really want offensive stereotypes, and more insidious ones, look at the 50's westerns for the portrayal of the American Indians, or the 30's crime shows for the negative images of the Asians, Italians, or blacks.

[Gundy]

Originally posted by tomndebb
The books, for those of you who have not had the opportunity to read them, are a genuine delight, but they have some racist passages that made me uncomfortable as a pre-teen almost 40 years ago. In particular, the doctor provides an African prince with cold cream to make him white, knowing that the cold cream will wear/wash off after the doctor has made his exit.

The prince figures in at least two of the books in the series and, if Murphy enjoyed the books, he had to have encountered those passages. Despite that, he was able to get past that aspect of Lofting's works and still found the stories captivating enough to want to bring the basic stories to the screen.

HOLY SHIT!!! I was thinking about starting a thread on this. tomndebb, I just finished reading the first Dr. Doolittle to my 7-year-old boy. I'd never read it before, and had no idea what it contained. It was fine up to that point and then, pow! I was flabbergasted. But I read those chapters anyway (the book contained the original etchings, and the immensely exaggerated stereotypical "black' features), and we had a pretty good talk about how things were when the book was written, and how much better they are now. So all in all I think it was productive and a good experience.

Re: the OP, running the offending toons later, hosted by someone who explains the background and history of the toons, would be a great idea. But I don't think they belong in the mid-day line up, where Junior's likely to encounter them without parental guidance.

[Manda JO]

As the conversation seems to be shifting towards early racist portrayals in entertainment, I am gonna add my own story.

One of the pride and joys of my book collection is the collected works of the comic strip Buck Rogers. The strip started in 1929, and the interesting thing about it is the way it trys to be progresive. Indians are shown as freedom fighters, for instance, with the full respect of the rest of the resistance, but they still wear feathers in their hair and say "how!" even as they crank up their airplanes. Women are activly involved in the resistence, shown acting as seconds on missions, working as "electronists", and to her credit, Wilma does attempt to escape in the first real adventure, but they still tend to get jealous, act catty, and get rescued alot. And they wear really short skirts.

On the other hand, while they make the attempt to show women and Indians in a positive light, the treatment of "mongols" is so racist and ignorant it almost has to be seen to be believed. The image of the Mongol Emperor praying "Buddha speed the day when thou will be mine oh lovely one" as he lusts after the heroine Wilma seems centuries, not decades, out of date to modern eyes. There is this persistaint them of 'Mongols want to fuck, but not marry, our women, beware!" Then there is the scene when an Indian (named Lonewolf) gets captured by the Mongels. They approach his plane and say "Good! A splindid specimin for our vivisection labratories!"

[Spoke]

Hey, how come the Warner Brothers cartoon with the feuding hillbillies didn't make the "banned" list?

As long as we're whitewashing past stereotypes, can't we whitewash the old "ignorant hillbillies" stereotype, too?

Other offenders: The Beverly Hillbillies, The Real McCoys, Li'l Abner, Pogo, Snuffy Smith. Ban 'em all!

[ElwoodCuse]

A while ago in the USGA magazine they did a feature on the history of golf in the comics. Someone wrote a letter and complained that they shouldn't have used "The Yellow Kid" because it was offensive to Asians. Their response was all but "Dumbass, his *shirt* is yellow. THAT'S why he's the yellow kid."

[Gr8Kat]

As for the cartoons themselves: the prevailing opinion seems to be that they should be shown "after hours," with the historical context made clear -- as historical documents, I guess. I can't find much to disagree with there.

Since this sentiment has been expressed several times in this thread, I thought I'd just point out that Cartoon Network has a program called "Late Night Black & White" on Sunday nights (9:00 PM PST/12:00 AM EST) which features uncensored WB, Paramount, and MGM cartoons. Of course they don't show anything too bad, like any of the "censored 11," but I have seen, among other things, Porky Pig parodying Cab Calloway and "Mr. Motto," an Asian detective, Indians actually finding Olive Oyl preferable to their own squaws (why????), and Betty Boop's panties.

[tracer]

Baker wrote:

All the Martians will have to do is blast us with the Iludium Q-37 Explosive Space Modulator!
Hey, wait a minute! When I was growing up, it was the Iludium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

Don't tell me they've censored the number "36" from cartoons nowadays, too!

[jab1]

Originally posted by Fenris
("Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs" is easily as good as "What's Opera Doc" and while I've never seen it, "Clean Pastures" is supposed to be a fascinating and funny look at early jazz musicians and I'd love to see it) Anyone who wants to see "Coal Black" (http://members.fortunecity.com/goopygeer1) and others can do so if you have RealVideo. These cartoons, like many others, are now in the public domain, their copyrights having expired. This page has links to other rarely-seen, public-domain cartoons.

[jab1]

Originally posted by jaimest
Come to think of it, I haven't seen the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or Abbot and Costello on TV in a long time too. Are those shows insensitive as well? Or just too old?The Stooges (http://www.threestooges.com/) are on AMC. (http://www.amctv.com/) They've shown Abbott & Costello (http://www.abbottandcostello.net/) movies too. Laurel & Hardy (http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/) are still out there, but you have to hunt for them. Sons of the Desert is now on DVD.

I think it's just that the films are old and in B&W and with scratchy sound. Avoid the colorized L&H shows if you can. Fortunately, the Stooges are still in B&W.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Eutychus said Which also begs the question, is there such a thing as a positive stereotype?

I am sorry for being a nit, but I can't stand when people misuse "beg the question." In may make one "ask teh question", but begging the question refers to a logical fallacy/cyclical logic.
Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.

[AwkwardToo]

Well, when are they going to pull the Tom and Jerry cartoons where the lower half of a stereotypical 'black mammy,' who is the house maid, is portrayed?

Porky Pig cartoons have already been censored because I saw one where Farmer Kid Porky is on a runaway train and in a brief flash, it whizzes past what I took to be a scare crow, but was a black man standing by the tracks and almost knocked over by the wind. The next time I saw the episode, that two seconds was edited out.

Disney edited out a scene in a Donald Duck cartoon where, frustrated by squirrels Chip and Dale stealing all of his food, he produces a WW2 tripod machine gun and blazes away, naturally hitting everything but them.

Most cartoons made fun of everyone, American Indians, Blacks, Whites - especially rich businessmen, political figures and cops, and during WW2, Germans and Japanese. Ever see the ones where they ridiculed groups of White movie stars? They loved to show Talula (SP) Bankhead with boat sized feet, Jerry Lewis with great buck teeth, some fat guy with huge lips, and Al Joleson with huge eyes.

They poked fun at cowboys, military people, sailors, senators (rightfully so there), and presidents.

The poked fun at Blacks, but Blacks were actually the smallest number of people made fun of!!

So, if we want to be really PC, did not Chip and Dale always start trouble for Donald Duck when he was minding his own business? Didn't they break into his home, his trailer and seal everything not tied down? Isn't that encouraging criminal activity?! Then Donald, not only with his explosive temper but, if you recall, when he visited penny arcades, he used a coin on a string to turn on the machines, disobeyed rules and usually managed to wreck the place.

Goofy. Are the making fun of the 'mentally challenged' here?

Huey, Dewy and Louie, Donald's nephews. Remember the early cartoon where Donald first gets to take care of his nephews? They are rude, undisciplined, tear up the house, ignore his orders, wreck the great meal he had prepared for them and make his life miserable. Isn't this promoting juvenile delinquent behavior? Let us not forget that often they were shown skipping school too!

How about those old cartoons with Heckle and Jeckle, the two crows who got into trouble all of the time. They certainly either sounded Black or real Southern Cracker and they went on to have an extensive comic book career! Come to think of it, I've not seen them on TV in quite some time, so I guess they were victims of Black stereotyping, or were they? They always won in the end.

My advise to people who get offended over minor jokes in cartoons? Get over it! Everyone was made fun of back then and censoring or pulling cartoons because of inoffensive racial stereotypes is discriminatory unless all races and nationalities, including Whites, are pulled also!

[CalMeacham]

Well, when are they going to pull the Tom and Jerry cartoons where the lower half of a stereotypical 'black mammy,' who is the house maid, is portrayed?



Actually, they've eliminated most of the "Mammy Two Shoes" appearances by animating new, white legs to replace them. An expensive solution, but apparently they did it. I haven't seen a cartoon with the two black legs in years.

As for your comment on Goofy and the mentally retarded you shoul know that Mort Walker reports in his wonderful book Backstage at the Strips that he's caught a lot of flak on account of Private Zero and the almost-forgotten Private Ozone) for precisely that reason.

Gary Larsen reports in The Prehistory of the Far Side that he gets letters from Amnesty International criticizing his gags with people in dungeons and on the rack. He asks if Mort Walker gets the same kind of comments for "The Wizard of Id".

And, just so that no cartoon company feels left out, I have to note that Fleischer Studios showed some things that would be thought offensive today -- Popeye singing "You're Sap, Sap, Sap, Mister Jap" in a WWII era cartoon, stereotyped "black" natives in another Popeye cartoon, not to mention he Superman cartoon "Jungle Drums". Several Japanese stereotypes in Superman cartoons, a lot of "Jewish" gags in Betty Boop cartoons. (Betty has a Jewish Mother!)


There's n end to these. But again, that's what you expect when these attitudes are common an entrenched. Pointing these out is like shooting fish in a barrel (or whatever the metaphor is). But there's no need for me to be sanctimonious about it, or to feel morally superior. It's a product of the times I live in and the times the cartoons were made.

[sqweels]

...some fat guy with huge lips...

That was probably Edward G. Robinson. Nyah! See? Nyah!

[Gr8Kat]

They loved to show Talula (SP) Bankhead with boat sized feet, Jerry Lewis with great buck teeth,

Isn't that Greta "I vant to be alone" Garbo with the big feet? I don't recall ever seeing Jerry Lewis in a WB cartoon--don't most of them predate his career?

Finally, who is the guy with the melon shaped head, long, droopy nose, and little squinty eyes? He's frequently portrayed as clapping his hands together and giving a little laugh, like "hoo hoo hoo." This caricature pops in probably dozens of old cartoons, and I have no idea who it's supposed to be.

[Gr8Kat]

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
Finally, who is the guy with the melon shaped head, long, droopy nose, and little squinty eyes? He's frequently portrayed as clapping his hands together and giving a little laugh, like "hoo hoo hoo." This caricature pops in probably dozens of old cartoons, and I have no idea who it's supposed to be. [/B]

Got it, his name was Hugh Herbert. Found it at http://members.aol.com/EOCostello/

[jab1]

All this time, I thought it was Ed Wynn.

How come white male gun users aren't offended by Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam?

[tracer]

'Cause Yosemite Sam is the roughest, toughest hombre what ever crossed the Rio Grandie.

And I don't mean Mahatma Ghandie.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
Got it, his name was Hugh Herbert. Found it at http://members.aol.com/EOCostello/

Gr8Kat,

An alternate site, which I've used for similar questions is
here. (http://www.spumco.com/magazine/eowbcc/eowbcc-index.html#intro)

Fenris

[Billy Rubin]

I've been thinking for several days now, and when the smoke cleared, I came to a somewhat startling conclusion:

Humor ain't fair.

I can't think of a joke or a humorous situation which doesn't involve
a: poking fun at the supposed inferiority of someone's race/sex/nationality/car/house/trailer/ancestry/whatever, or
b: being amused at the misfortune of someone in an uncomfortable situation.

If we take out every reference that offends someone, we'll have lost our humor completely. If we have to narrow down humor to only that which abuses white middle class males, go for it. I'm bigger than being offended by that. Or maybe we could all pay attention to what our kids are watching, not allow them to watch what we don't want them to, and get a life.

Myself, I want to know why Mickey Mouse had a friend who was a dog, and a pet who was a dog. Was Pluto Minney's illegitimate child by Goofy? is that what is meant by "f***'in goofy"?

Jus' wunnerin'
b.

[Baker]

I'm sure there are a lot of "Bloom County" fans here. Do you remember this one?

Opus is sitting on a bench at a bus stop with a number of other folks when one guy speaks up:
"Ya know, you penguin types offend me"
#2 says "Hey.. I'll tell ya what offends me...dirty words, that's what."
#3"Polish jokes offend me"
#1"Sterotypes offend ME"
#4"TV SEX OFFENDS ME"
#2"LOOK! THAT SIGN IS OFFENSIVE!"
#5"I mad that sign and I'm offended!"
#3"Frankly sir, you offend me."
#1"Well! I'm offended at your offense!"
#4"THOSE NUDES OFFEND MY WOMANHOOD!"
#2"THOSE GAYS OFFEND MY MANHOOD!"
#5"This comic offends my offensiveness"

And then, all together they scream:"MY GOSH. LIFE IS OFFENSIVE!!AAIGGH!!" and everyone but Opus runs away screaming. Says Opus "Offensitivity"

[Kaitlyn]

Which also begs the question, is there such a thing as a positive stereotype?

Of course not. Take the stereotype of the smart Jew. Suppose someone says "I want Dr. Feldman as my doctor because he's a Jew." This would seem on its surface to be a positive representation of Jews as smart, accompished people who make skilled physicians, and that is a part of it.

But another part of the message in such a statement is that Dr. Feldman's skill as a doctor does not come from his hard work, long hours of study, devotion to his profession, desire to help people, or any other admirable quality he as a person posesses. The message is that whatever skill he posesses comes from his race, and as such, he really deserves no credit for his accomplishments, or at least he deserves less credit than a Latino, Indian, Irish, Italian, etc.

Positive stereotypes attribute positive qualities to the race or ethnicity and not to the individual and as such deny individuals the credit they deserve. Apply the same reasoning to black baskeball players and sprinters, Russian chess players, Irish policemen.

I am not equating these things with the depiction of blacks as lazy, or Indians as vicious savages. Clearly, those are worse. But both positive and negative stereotypes have the same basic message, which is that people should be judged based on percieved group characteristics (whether generally accurate or not) and not as individuals. This is always a bad thing.

[Askia]

A few quick declarations:

1) I'm a black male.
2) I'm an amatuer cartoonist with a more-than-passing knowledge of animation and cartoons, of animated characters and their creators, and their various studios.
3) I'm a schoolteacher.
4) I'm thirty.

Having made those declarations, I want to make a few pronouncements.

1) Warner Bros.' Censored 11: Most of them are shoddily done racist entertainment aimed at squarely at White Americans' basest expectations. Non-blacks are clearly doing the character designs, animation, voices, storylines, dialogue, music and schtick, and are definitely pandering to a 1940s mass audience.

2) Bob Clampett's Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves is putrid. The animation is anything but "gorgeous", the pace is more choppy and nonsensical than "frenetic", the "sweep" lasts all of eight minutes and its "incredibly funny" humor is derived almost entirely from typical 1940s slapstick humor, "Amos N Andy" niggerese, World War II barbs and stereotypes both real and imagined. (The recurring dice thing is just another one of Warner's Bros. weird racial fetishes.) If you laughed once, in 2001, grow up.

3) I disagree somewhat with the posters above who've suggested that children shouldn't see these cartoons. I personally believe it depends on the maturity and intelligence of the child -- and where they view it. (Not in public schools.) I don't think they should view them in the same context as a Roadrunner cartoon, obviously, but I don't think children should be 'protected' from understanding just how flagrant and insidious social attitudes were (and still are) anymore than I needed to be shielded from reading Hellen Bannerman's Little Black Sambo (http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/sambo.htm) or Twain's 213 uses of "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn. Some really nice people are racists, as Manda Jo said. I think it's a good thing fewer and fewer are.

4) I think a TV program that had cartoon historians shedding light on the social attitudes that were prevelant when these (and other) cartoons were made would be a highly informative but ultimately not too entertaining show -- which is why it won't ever get made.

Thank you, Fenris, jab1 for the links.

[CalMeacham]

Bob Clampett's Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves is putrid. The animation is anything but "gorgeous", the pace is more choppy and nonsensical than "frenetic", the "sweep" lasts all of eight minutes and its "incredibly funny" humor is derived almost entirely from typical 1940s slapstick humor, "Amos N Andy" niggerese, World War II barbs and stereotypes both real and imagined. (The recurring dice thing is just another one of Warner's Bros. weird racial fetishes.) If you laughed once, in 2001, grow up.



If you go back to my post on this, you'll see that I agree with the offensiveness of the stereotypes. But I'll tand by the "gorgeous" and the "frenetic". The opening and closing shots, the silhuette of the black mother holding her child n a rocking chair in front of the fire, are beautiful. They were probably rotoscoped to within a millimeter of the live actors -- but it's still beautiful. I submit that one man's "choppy" is another man's "frenetic". And what Found funny wasn't the Amos and Andy stereotypes, but the way Clmpett moved the characters. Racial jokes don't do damned thing for me. And that's why I find Coal Black frustrating -- it's a textbook exercise in prime 1940s animation polluted by the most extreme and objectionable stereotypes imaginable.

[Badtz Maru]

I saw a fairly recent cartoon on a Spanish station called 'De Cabeza' where every black character had HUGE red lips - they took up about 1/3 of the total facial area. They didn't seem to be saying or acting in stereotypical ways (though my Spanish isn't very good, I can only understand about 1/3 of what is being said) but I can't imagine an English-language cartoon portraying blacks that way today.

[rjung]

I just wanted to say that while I thought Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarves was offensive and (putting aside the racist elements) only mildly funny, I have to admit that Coal Black herself was one hot (animated) gal. :D

She could give Tex Avery's "Little Red" a run for the money. CB was the only good thing in an otherwise bleagh piece of celluloid.

[capacitor]

I am a Black man who happen to have and like big lips; it is said that it is an evolutionary advancement. Those animated lips with small, button noses, narrowed faces, and slurred speech, that's the problem. It is as if they never saw a Black man before, or have nobody besides Stephen Fetchit pose for them. Geez, when they drew the Japanese as sinister beings, they drew them more or less anatomically correct. They weren't even close when it comes to drawing Black men, children and Big Women.

[Eutychus]

Originally posted by capacitor
Geez, when they drew the Japanese as sinister beings, they drew them more or less anatomically correct.

I'd have to disagree there. Most Japanese caricatures showed them with extremely slanted eyes with big buck teeth. Hardly representative of Japanese people in general except in a very stereotypical sense.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by capacitor
I am a Black man who happen to have and like big lips; it is said that it is an evolutionary advancement. Those animated lips with small, button noses, narrowed faces, and slurred speech, that's the problem. It is as if they never saw a Black man before, or have nobody besides Stephen Fetchit pose for them. Geez, when they drew the Japanese as sinister beings, they drew them more or less anatomically correct. They weren't even close when it comes to drawing Black men, children and Big Women.

I've noticed that in a lot of Japanese comics and animation that Japanese characters are portrayed with big round eyes, but Chinese, Korean, or other Asian characters have eyes as slanted as in the worst WWII-era propaganda.

I've noticed that in a lot of Mexican cartoons black characters are drawn as caricatures that would probably be considered offensive in the U.S., but other than the way they are visually presented there is nothing else really 'wrong' about it. Of course, most cartoon characters are caricatures that don't really look like a real human being.

I wasn't exaggerating about the size of those lips in the cartoon I mentioned - I'd think nothing of a portrayal that showed the black characters with larger lips on average than the Hispanic or white characters, in fact someone who drew blacks exactly the same as everyone else but with a different skin tone is probably either a poor artist or subconsciously fixated on only one of the differences. I don't think there's many people who would see anything negative about fuller than average lips, Angelina Jolie is considered by a lot of guys as an extremely attractive woman, in part BECAUSE of her lips. In 'De Cabeza', however, all of the non-black characters had no lips (it's a fairly simply drawn cartoon) while every black character had huge bright red lips, with no variation in size. It wasn't quite as bad as [url="http://www.somethingawful.com/rompit/tomsawyer-square/pic-01.gif"]Square's Tom Sawyer[/url} for the NES, but I'm surprised it's allowed on the air in the U.S.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
It wasn't quite as bad as Square's Tom Sawyer (http://www.somethingawful.com/rompit/tomsawyer-square/pic-01.gif) for the NES, but I'm surprised it's allowed on the air in the U.S. I fixed your link. You used a "}" instead of a "]" at the very end.

[Louie]

Originally posted by jaimest
Come to think of it, I haven't seen the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or Abbot and Costello on TV in a long time too. Are those shows insensitive as well?

I was watching the 3 Stooges Marathon on AMC a couple of months ago. The very last episode they showed in the marathon was this surprising episode (summary found here : 3 Stooges (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2933/episodethreestooges.html)) :
NO DOUGH BOYS

(Episode 82): The stooges are dressed as Japanese soldiers for their job as magazine models. On their lunch break they go into a restaurant with their Japanese uniforms on causing the proprietor to mistake them for the real thing, and a chase ensues. The boys fall through a trap door, and into a nest of Nazi spies where they are mistaken for "Naki", "Saki" and "Waki", three Japanese saboteurs. The stooges try to act the part, including demonstrating acrobatics and jiu-jitsu to their hosts. When the real "Naki", "Saki" and "Waki" show up, the boys are exposed and impostors, but after a wild fight manage to capture all the Axis spies.

Seeing the Stooges with lines drawn across their eyes and buck teeth... :eek:

[Spoke]

So how come Cletus the slack-jawed yokel isn't considered an offensive stereotype? How come it's OK to stereotype some groups but not others?

(And how come I'm posting like were Socrates?)

I agree that offensive stereotypes have no place in children's programming, or any programming, for that matter, but it seems to me that we are more sensitive to some stereotypes than we are to others.

[Askia]

The lifestyles of Hill Folk living in the Ozarks and Appalachians are among the last acceptable stereotypes.

[Kaitlyn]

Originally posted by spoke-
So how come Cletus the slack-jawed yokel isn't considered an offensive stereotype? How come it's OK to stereotype some groups but not others?

(And how come I'm posting like were Socrates?)

I agree that offensive stereotypes have no place in children's programming, or any programming, for that matter, but it seems to me that we are more sensitive to some stereotypes than we are to others.

The Simpsons makes fun of everyone. If they singled out Cletus, I'd see your point, but they target everyone on that show, and the chief target of humor is a white, middle class, family man.

The Simpsons treats all its characters as fodder for the jokes. When you treat everyone equally, that is the opposite of discrimination.

[Spoke]

Number Six wrote:The Simpsons mak see your point, but they target everyone on that show, and the chief target of humor is a white, middle class, family man.

The Simpsons treats all its characters as fodder for the jokes. When you treat everyone equally, that is the opposite of discrimination.

Except The Simpsons doesn't really do that. They observe the standard taboos. You don't see any shuckin' and jivin' black characters, do you? No buck-toothed Asians. No money-grubbing Jews. (And let me be clear. It's good that they do observe these taboos.)

My point is that it is still acceptable to stereotype Southerners in general, and mountaineers in particular, as slack-jawed, inbred ignoramuses. Want your character to sound stupid? Give him a Southern accent, right?

I'm not all worked up about it. Just mildly annoyed by it.

(Being both a Southerner and a moutaineer.)

[Kaitlyn]

Cletus lives neither in the South nor in the mountains, so he is neither a Southerner nor a mountain person. I've always seen him as just a poor Springfieldite. I've seen the "Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel" jokes as being aimed at "poor white trash." This would indeed be offensive discrimination if not for the fact that the show ridicules middle-class whites (Simpsons, Flanders) and rich whites (Mr. Burns, Krusty) much more often than it does Cletus.

And the show does have a greedy Jew (Krusty), along with an even greedier WASP (Mr. Burns), a greedy mayor, greedy Italian gangsters, greedy, corrupt police, greedy lawyers, doctors, business owners, etc. Had Krusty been singled out as a greedy Jew as opposed to the Gentiles, that would be offensive, but when the show depicts basically everyone as being greedy, it is treating them equally.

If you are looking for something to be offended about, The Simpsons will no doubt have something to offend you, which is what I think makes the show great. It targets everything and everyone. It is about as anti-pc as a show can get.

[Spoke]

Cletus lives neither in the South nor in the mountains

Cletus has an unmistakeable Southern accent. (And Southern accent=stupid, of course. :rolleyes: ) The character draws on the worst stereotypes of Southern mountaineers.

Krusty, you will recall, is a spendthrift, the opposite of the Jewish stereotype.

Hey, I'm not "looking for something to be offended about." I love The Simpsons. For my money, it's been the best show on TV over the course of its run, and maybe the best ever. That doesn't make the show immune from all criticism.

[jab1]

Have you heard of him? He's a bad guy on The Powerpuff Girls. He has a thick Southern accent, he's lazy, he wears blue overalls, he lives in a one-room shack in the woods, he likes "rasslin'", he has "cuzzins" named Hairy and Furry (among others), he once was elected Mayor and kept a pig and a broken-down car in the office and made Miss Sarah Bellum dress like Daisy May (cut-off jeans, a halter-top and bare feet not that I'm complainin'...). Also, he's fat and he ain't too bright.

OTOH, he's pink, furry and has antennae. IOW, he isn't human. Does the stereotype still apply to non-human characters? Is it still offensive?

[Baker]

I'm bumping this up because I just saw a blurb on the Cartoon Network that next week, at 10:00PM ET their "Toonheads" feature will be showing wartime cartoons. Not sure which ones, there were quite a few, but the blurb had fast images of Hitler, Japanese soldiers, and so on. Maybe they will be showing some of the controversial ones? If anyone finds out I'm sure we would like to know.

[kaylasdad99]

this quote from you, here. As long as we're whitewashing past stereotypes, can't we whitewash the old "ignorant hillbillies" stereotype, too?

Other offenders: The Beverly Hillbillies, The Real McCoys, Li'l Abner, Pogo, Snuffy Smith. Ban 'em all! (bolding mine)

Pogo, a hillbilly? He lives in the freakin' Okeefenokee swamp!

Can we get an adjudication from a geographer, please?

[Askia]

ALL Southerners are damned to a 'dim-witted' stereotype and hillbillies are just Southerners who live in the mountains. There's probrably a special subset for Southeners who hang around the swamps, too (Coonass? Cajuns?)

I don't think the characters in POGO fit into the overall stereotype. Not all usage of patois or dialect is meant in a demeening way. Now, when the lil' black kid (Bumbamzee?) was in the Sunday strip, however...

[mobo85]

Originally posted by jab1
Have you heard of him? He's a bad guy on The Powerpuff Girls. He has a thick Southern accent, he's lazy, he wears blue overalls, he lives in a one-room shack in the woods, he likes "rasslin'", he has "cuzzins" named Hairy and Furry (among others), he once was elected Mayor and kept a pig and a broken-down car in the office and made Miss Sarah Bellum dress like Daisy May (cut-off jeans, a halter-top and bare feet not that I'm complainin'...). Also, he's fat and he ain't too bright.

OTOH, he's pink, furry and has antennae. IOW, he isn't human. Does the stereotype still apply to non-human characters? Is it still offensive?

Well, I don't know, but if I hear any pink furry hillbillies protesting and threateningly waving their boomsticks outside of AOL Time Warner headquarters, you'll be the first to know. :)

Ryan W. Mead, who's been looking for an excuse to use the word "boomstick"

[Nekochan]

I wonder what Swedish people would think of the Swedish Chef muppet character? Would French people find Pepe LePew, who was horny and smelly, offensive?

And capacitor...Japanese stereotypes were anatomically correct? Oyf! Please clarify!

[jab1]

I once worked with some French guys who thought Inspector Clouseau was hilarious and not at all offensive. I never did find out how they felt about Pepe Le Pew.

[Baker]

Cartoon Network just finished the selection of wartime cartoons I mentioned a few days ago. In between individual cartoons there were clips of others they did not show, and a lot of talk about stereotypes and wartime context. The only one shown tonight from the 11 that were not shown in the June Bugs Marathon was "Herr Meets Hare". Just wondering if anyone else saw them and what they thought.

[Gr8Kat]

Originally posted by Baker
Cartoon Network just finished the selection of wartime cartoons I mentioned a few days ago. In between individual cartoons there were clips of others they did not show, and a lot of talk about stereotypes and wartime context. The only one shown tonight from the 11 that were not shown in the June Bugs Marathon was "Herr Meets Hare". Just wondering if anyone else saw them and what they thought.

I saw the program, but I'm afraid I don't have any deep thoughts.

But it did look to me like, even in this historical context, there was some editing. In particular, in the Tex Avery 3 Little Pigs cartoon, I noticed that there was a sign in front of the pigs' bunker that read "No Dogs." The word "dogs" was crossed out and it appeared that something else had been written above it, but that had been blurred out. Of course that just peaks one's curiosity.

It's also the first time since I was a wee girl that I've seen "Herr Meets Hare" and I actually get most of the jokes now, but who is Bugs impersonating at the end that upsets both Hitler and Goering?

And did it seem to me that, while they shied away from any Japanese stereotypes, indeed even apologized for them, they didn't have the same compunctions about German stereotypes? Is it ok because the German charicatures didn't include appearance, just culture and language?

All in all, it was pretty educational, but it would have been nice if it had been longer so they could have shown more cartoons. I'd really like to have seen some of those Private Snafu cartoons.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
in the Tex Avery 3 Little Pigs cartoon, I noticed that there was a sign in front of the pigs' bunker that read "No Dogs." The word "dogs" was crossed out and it appeared that something else had been written above it, but that had been blurred out.I noticed that too.

It's also the first time since I was a wee girl that I've seen "Herr Meets Hare" and I actually get most of the jokes now, but who is Bugs impersonating at the end that upsets both Hitler and Goering?The bushy mustache and eyebrows, the pipe and the green uniform with red stars means he was supposed to be Joseph Stalin.

I'm pretty sure some of the Snafu cartoons are on home video.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by jab1
I'm pretty sure some of the Snafu cartoons are on home video.

They all are, I've got 'em and they're great. Two video set from Bosko video (I found that they may be available on DVD (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/completeprivatesnafu.html)!)

[mobo85]

Originally posted by jab1
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gr8Kat
[b]in the Tex Avery 3 Little Pigs cartoon, I noticed that there was a sign in front of the pigs' bunker that read "No Dogs." The word "dogs" was crossed out and it appeared that something else had been written above it, but that had been blurred out.I noticed that too.

The word was "Japs." According to Jerry Beck, the censorship was on Turner's old print, and there was nothing he could do about it. (A joke about Doolittle's bombing of Tokyo was also missing from the old print.)