Mammy’s entire “identity” was a racist caricature. Including her voice.
I watched T&J during the 80s. I don’t know where you grew up, but in Georgia, the original version was shown.
This source doesn’t list fried chicken in any of the offenses. But she did drop a straight razor along with her dice and gambling chips.
Texas, it is possible I saw the original but didn’t know at the time what a switchblade or dice meant but I would have remembered fried chicken as being stupid to keep in your pocket. I do remember Mammy had a exaggerated southern black accent, and viewing it as an adult with adult knowledge agree she was a racist stereotype.
But as a kid she was one of the few black characters in cartoons, so when her voice was changed to a female newscaster I was pissed. I was like what next will they recolor her arms and legs to be a white woman? Again as a kid I did not understand the stereotype she was meant to invoke, I was just pissed she was being changed.
Before anyone misconstrues me in SDMB fashion no I do not think Mammy Two Shoes accent was an essential part of being black etc.
Instead I thought they were trying to erase one of the few black characters in cartoons, even in the 80s although the cartoons were from a different time.
Just curious… what country have you expatriated to, where the construct of “race” has no role in the culture, no effect on people’s lives?
But then hence the oddity of the described changing her voice. Would her having a “white” voice have made the image any less offensive?
Not as long as you can see those brown legs of hers, no.
If the legs are lightened and the voice without the stereotypical dialect, then she ceases to be “Mammy”. All the associated imagery becomes completely random rather than offensive.
Hopefully, he’s not going to say “Australia”.
(Yes, I know what a whoosh sounds like. I just really wanted to underscore this point.)
What DO the dice, razor, knife, etc. signify? (Not up on those stereotypes)
It’s been so long since I watched some of these cartoons that I’m afraid I can’t remember any specifically racist episodes, (unless you count Bugs Bunny dressing up like a Viking in drag) but if anyone thinks it wasn’t there, c’mon.
(BTW, was there any big controversary over The Princess and the Frog? I absolutely adored that one.)
It seems to me that Amazon and Whoopi Goldberg are both correct. It would be hard to find many bodies of work created in certain eras that did not contain the prejudices that were endemic within their times. I do not see the answer as removing the images of minorities there were because those images reflected the common prejudices of the majority culture at the time. But neither is Tom and Gerry great enough entertainment to justify the effort to explain the context to kids looking for mindless cartoon violence. Looney Tunes? Worth it!
These are stereotypes that date back to the minstrel show era. They’re pretty outdated, but the general idea is that black people are lazy, childish/irresponsible, and violent.
From the Wikipedia article “Stereotypes of groups within the United States”:
From the article on “Coon song”:
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Dice + gambling chips –> Those coons sure like their low-brow, immoral games (like craps), don’t they?
Razor/knife–> Those coons sure like to cut people, don’t they? (Knives and straight razors are the stereotypical weapon of choice for black people)
Meh. I have a feeling that you and Whoopie think it’s “worth it” because you both grew up watching pretty much nothing but Looney Tunes, so of course it carries a special significance to you. For kids today, Looney Tunes likely makes up a very small percentage of their TV viewing. They grew up with Baby Mozart, so they don’t need Bugs Bunny to introduce them to classical music. Most of the jokes and gags are dated (seriously, what non-geeky 7-year-old knows who Groucho Marx is?) If Looney Tunes disappeared today, a bunch of nostalgic Boomers and Gen-Xers would be outraged. But younger generations would go, “Whatever” and be none the worse.
What can I say? YMMV. FWIW my kids, all younger than you, have loved the original Looney Tunes. But then I am parent whose thoughts about cultural literacy mean that they had to exposed to Groucho and to Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on First?” at early ages. Some cultural references of course are dated but the humor, IMHO, holds timelessly. Part of the beauty of Looney Tunes was that I didn’t get many of the jokes when I first watched them and still thought it was great, and then watching it when I was older got those jokes and appreciated it all the more.
That said it your lack of appreciation for the classics is immaterial to the point that she is making and that is operationalized by the warning offered by Amazon Streaming, the same point made by Ulf the Unwashed earlier - merit matters and as a parents we should be able to make informed judgements. Is, in your opinion as a parent based on your assessment of the material, the merit of the material sufficient to justify exposing your child to what society was (and to some degree still is). Are you ready to have that discussion? Is your child? Would it be such a big item that it would detract too much from the work otherwise? Is it by now an understood item for your child that they would note it as part of the time the work was produced and as an odd thing and be just fine. I thought it was interesting how my kids had noticed the casual cigarette use as a cool marker in Get Smart reruns, for example, and how it is not shown on most shows they saw in their experience to date, in a similar regard. That one exposure of smoking is the cool marker did not risk turning them into smokers.
Honestly though any parent letting their child see/read anything for kids of a past era should be aware that such works may contain tropes that are offensive by today’s standards. The best defense is to just not let your kids consume worthless old dreck in any case and be part of the consumption process.
Assuming you are still addressing me (I’m unsure if you are, since you seem to be addressing points that I haven’t made…which is why I’ve clipped your post), I appreciate the classics very much. Whether they be Looney Tunes or Huckleberry Finn or any other influential work. But I do think there is some cultural arrogance to your last comment. Looney Tunes is important to you. If it’s important to you, by all means consume as much as you want of it, in all its unadulterated forms. But if the powers that be decide to stop showing it on-air, I’m not going to see it a cultural travesty. Society will not have lost anything that can’t be seamlessly replaced or ordered on a DVD box set. The great thing about classics is that they always being churned out. I seriously doubt that children today are being negatively affected because Mammy Two-Shoes’s voice has been dubbed-over or you can’t turn on the TV and watch overtly racist racist Looney Tune cartoon episodes. We can treasure something without treasuring all of it.
I grew up watching Looney Tunes. I enjoyed them, but not enough to say I’m fine with all the racist imagery being left intact. I believe that entertainment and education about racism is great for older kids, in the context of primetime TV when the whole family is gathered 'round the living room. Not so much for a cartoon watched over a bowl of cereal on a Saturday morning while Mommy and Daddy are still in bed.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it for me as well. I’ve been reading classics to my daughter since she was two or three. I’ve also been introducing her to ideas about racism and sexism and other inequalities as I think she’s ready for it. But as much as I love the character of Peter Pan, I don’t think she’ll be ready for the book until she’s much older; I won’t even recommend it to my third graders. Processing the shittiness in such a great work is a tricky thing to do, and you need a lot of background knowledge to do it.
This is kinda related to this thread:
The answer to implicit racism may be in children’s literature
And in the novelization of the film, written to come out at the same, time, the cats realize their mischief actually hurt Lady, so they make amends, and cry remorsefully.
They arent evil, just troublemakers.
Of course, you’re taking seriously the writings of the Master of satire and whooshes.
Again, spoken out of ignorance. if you read “Who is Afraid of Song of the South” by Jim Korkis you’ll find you are utterly & completely wrong.
That wasn’t a switchblade. The stereotypical weapon of a black man (like Bad, Bad, Leroy Brown) was a straight razor.
