Why do these cartoons need a warning?!

[Kathryn]

The "blackface" minstrel character was used as vulgar, uncouth comic relief. It was intentionally insulting. Was it funny to some white people at the time? Sure. Is it still funny to some white people? Apparently. That doesn't make it right. Someone being blissfully ignorant of the history doesn't mean that you should laugh it off as part of the "PC policing" that is so easy to disregard. I think you should actually learn about what it stands for before you can discuss it reasonably.

 

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/coon/

 

Great link. We studied black racial caricatures in one of my undergraduate history courses. These were intentional and methodical, the same way Germans and Japanese were caricatured during WWII (I took a graduate seminar on WWII propaganda and these were linked). The place for these caricatures is a history classroom, not Saturday morning entertainment for young children.

[Murphy101]

[/i]We own this cartoon because it is in the Silly Symphonies boxed set.

 

At 3:45 see how the white and black baby dolls are portrayed.

 

I swear. I tend to be very negative some times, but again. We didn't see the black baby doll as negative! She is smart and cute! The white doll was stupid. Had to be instructed on how to say mama and have her bum stamped for her.:001_huh:

 

If you say the black baby was negative and racist, then I guess I will take your word for it. I don't have a problem with being educated to what about it seems racist. I might still disagree, but I'm all for an exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

 

But what *I* am saying is that I think many kids would not have viewed it that way. *I* wouldn't even at 38. and I would not assume that a kid today would either.

 

The question was: why do they carry this warning? So that parents can make a decision for themselves about whether to let their kids view it and/or whether to discuss it with them. I think this is a good reason for a warning label.

 

I don't have a problem necessarily with the label per se. I'd rather they have the label than censorship. I do take exception to an attitude that anyone who laughs must be some unenlightened bigot.

 

Yeah. That's it. I just "saw" racism when a white child doing the potty dance with a white mother was treated differently than a mixed child doing the potty dance with a PR mother by the same employee.

 

You have the luxury of explaining it away in that fashion. My SIL and brother and their kids don't share that luxury with you or with me. I have basically never been turned away from an establishment's restroom or services. My brother does not have that same experience.

 

I did not say you just saw it. My first statement was that he might very well have been a racist whatsit. and I wasn't being snarky. I know there are jerks in the world and I know it's possible he was one of them.

 

What I continued to illustrate was that he also might not have been. I've been turned away for lots of things. In my case, it is usually because of family size. They might be willing to make an exception for one kid, but they don't want to make an exception for 10. Several months ago I asked to take my 3 year old t the restroom and somewhere said fine. But when 2 of my sons asked to go, they were told no. I wasn't near him so the guy didn't know he was also my child. Oh well. I loaded the kids up and we went elsewhere for a potty.

 

All I am *suggesting* is that it *might* not have been because of racism but a regret for making an exception. Or maybe the guy got a lecture about it after letting your dd use it. Or I don't know.

 

Again. Maybe he is a total racist turd. Could have been.

 

But maybe not. I would not assume it unless there was some other fact involved.

[Catwoman]

I agree with your whole post but this hits the nail on the head. Parents on WTM have expressed concern over religious views in schools and swearing in books for hs students. Some parents are concerned about dated attitudes about race and gender. The warning neither prevents someone from watching or sharing it with their kids. But it does give a heads up for those of us who do mind. What is so objectionable about that? The warning just gives parents more information.

 

I am absolutely fine with that warning. When we bought our Looney Tunes DVD sets, there was a vague "may be inappropriate for children" type of warning on the box, but there was no detail about what might be inappropriate.

 

My only complaint about the warning was that the one I saw was so vague that I had no idea what to expect from the DVDs (and had to go online to research what the issues were.)

[Murphy101]

^ what Cat said.

[PeacefulChaos]

I am absolutely fine with that warning. When we bought our Looney Tunes DVD sets, there was a vague "may be inappropriate for children" type of warning on the box, but there was no detail about what might be inappropriate.

 

My only complaint about the warning was that the one I saw was so vague that I had no idea what to expect from the DVDs (and had to go online to research what the issues were.)

 

:iagree:

While I may not have a problem with it personally, I don't see a problem with a warning label - provided it actually gives some information. :)

[Scrub Jay]

 

This website is a very interesting read. Good information on black stereotypes in old cartoons.

[momma2three]

Are people seriously saying that they don't see anything wrong with showing young children old cartoons with racist stereotypes and/or blackface? :confused:

[Scrub Jay]

Are people seriously saying that they don't see anything wrong with showing young children old cartoons with racist stereotypes and/or blackface? :confused:

 

I think people are saying they don't see it. Somehow. I really don't get it since it screams in obviousness. I hope people visit the link I posted above.

[mommymilkies]

Are people seriously saying that they don't see anything wrong with showing young children old cartoons with racist stereotypes and/or blackface? :confused:

 

We don't watch many older cartoons, but when we do and these issues come up, I take it as a good chance for discussion. The kids got so sick of my Peter Pan tirades that they don't watch it anymore. Lol

[momma2three]

I think people are saying they don't see it. Somehow. I really don't get it since it screams in obviousness. I hope people visit the link I posted above.

 

I accidentally showed my kids one of these sorts of cartoons last December. It was a collection of old Christmas cartoons on Netflix. It seriously made my jaw drop! I was not expecting it at all. There was one with little international dolls, including the buck-toothed "Chinese" one, and the black one. And then there was blackface in a few of them (Christmas means lots of chimney soot, apparently).

 

I had a similar problem with a Netflix collection of Judy Garland shorts... I was thinking she'd like it because there was lots of singing and dancing. Apparently Judy and Andy did quite a few routines in blackface... who knew? :001_huh:

[Guest]

This website is a very interesting read. Good information on black stereotypes in old cartoons.

 

That is good information. Thanks for the link.

[Scrub Jay]

I accidentally showed my kids one of these sorts of cartoons last December. It was a collection of old Christmas cartoons on Netflix. It seriously made my jaw drop! I was not expecting it at all. There was one with little international dolls, including the buck-toothed "Chinese" one, and the black one. And then there was blackface in a few of them (Christmas means lots of chimney soot, apparently).

 

 

I think I showed the exact Christmas video to DD as well, a few years ago. She was too young to notice but I remember a baby (?) falling in soot and DH and I staring at each other, mouths agape. I guess we should have been prepared for stuff like that since the video was so old but we just hadn't given it any thought.

[annandatje]

It is simply the truth. When posters are arguing that characters based on blatant racial stereotypes at the time (thick lips, dim witted, accent/dialect) are "just" black characters, then I am going to point it out.

Look at the other link I posted with numerous other examples. If someone can watch that and say they see no issue with it, then yes, they are either very naive or racist.

 

There is a reason that effort has been put forth to get rid of toss stereotypes over the years. They were not harmless, and to refer to the efforts to get rid of them as simple "political correctness" is ignorant.

 

As a child in the 60s, I recall being uncomfortable with the depiction of black characters in certain cartoons that still aired on television.

[Jean in Newcastle]

What's these cartoons got against southern huntsmen?!:tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

If cartoons portrayed all white men as not only southern huntsmen but as stupid buffoons, then that would be racist and objectionable as well. The point is that this portrayal of blacks was universal and the only narrow portrayal allowed. It created a stereotype in both white and black people's minds of how black men are. Yes, people might meet an educated black man and think "oh, this is the exception" but the stereotype was still there. I really liked the link that Kathleen gave. It shows that many of those stereotypes are still there even today. I am sad to say that some of those stereotypes are perpetrated by black people in media themselves, which is something I don't understand.

 

The Asian stereotypes were also terrible but have not been kept alive in the same way. Though I've met my share of people who have called me "Jap" (I'm white but raised in Japan) and have pulled their eyes into a slant and made their teeth stick out to talk to me in a sing-song voice. Fortunately that was over 30 years ago when I was a child but I don't doubt that some of that goes on now.

[Mommy22alyns]

If cartoons portrayed all white men as not only southern huntsmen but as stupid buffoons, then that would be racist and objectionable as well. The point is that this portrayal of blacks was universal and the only narrow portrayal allowed. It created a stereotype in both white and black people's minds of how black men are. Yes, people might meet an educated black man and think "oh, this is the exception" but the stereotype was still there. I really liked the link that Kathleen gave. It shows that many of those stereotypes are still there even today. I am sad to say that some of those stereotypes are perpetrated by black people in media themselves, which is something I don't understand.

 

The Asian stereotypes were also terrible but have not been kept alive in the same way. Though I've met my share of people who have called me "Jap" (I'm white but raised in Japan) and have pulled their eyes into a slant and made their teeth stick out to talk to me in a sing-song voice. Fortunately that was over 30 years ago when I was a child but I don't doubt that some of that goes on now.

 

Yes, it definitely does, unfortunately. I seem to recall an incident involving Miley Cyrus some years back, and maybe a sports figure more recently. Unbelievable.

[Dana]

This website is a very interesting read. Good information on black stereotypes in old cartoons.

 

Thanks for the link.

We have Bamboozled and it's a movie I definitely want my son to watch when he's older. I've been thinking of it all day.

[KidsHappen]

And then there's Winnie the Pooh-he had an eating disorder, Piglet had an anxiety disorder, Eeyore was depressed, Tigger is ADD, and Rabbit is OCD.

 

Well, if you also consider Pooh a little slow then I could be the entire population of the hundred acre woods. :tongue_smilie:

[stripe]

I think people are saying they don't see it. Somehow. I really don't get it since it screams in obviousness.

Yeah, I don't really understand how huge, red lips and constant watermelon eating is in any way realistic or not totally offensive.

[Murphy101]

As a child in the 60s, I recall being uncomfortable with the depiction of black characters in certain cartoons that still aired on television.

 

And maybe that's part of the difference here? I don't know how old some of you are, but I don't remember cartoon until I was about k or 1st grade. That would have been late 70s. If there was racism and drugs in them, it completely missed my attention. If anything, I remember the multitude of after school specials exhorting against drugs and to not be racist.

 

Are people seriously saying that they don't see anything wrong with showing young children old cartoons with racist stereotypes and/or blackface? :confused:

 

Because I didn't grow up with blackface? How is that confusing?

When I watch(ed) those cartoons of exploding stuff in their face, usually dynamite, I never leaped to anything at all about black people. I sincerely figured it was soot/explosive or whatever. My kids too. They have no reference point to connect it to black people so they don't. Just like I have never had a joint, so the notion that of course scoot snacks are pot is completely mind boggling to me. To me: They are just extra yummy dog biscuits. Having growing teen boys, we have an extra understanding of a skinny shaggy haired guy who loves food.;)

 

I'm not naive. I know racism exists. But what is being called racist in *some* of these cartoons? That's just not my experience with black people or any white person I would associate with. It's not like white people sit around talking about black face. Maybe they should! On the Internet at least.:)

[momma2three]

I'm probably younger than you are, but blackface, and its social repercussions, are such an important part of our cultural heritage here in the US, it is very surprising to me that this thread would be the first time someone has ever heard of it, or heard that it was a bad thing.

[Scrub Jay]

I'm probably younger than you are, but blackface, and its social repercussions, are such an important part of our cultural heritage here in the US, it is very surprising to me that this thread would be the first time someone has ever heard of it, or heard that it was a bad thing.

 

Yes, I have to agree and I'm guessing I am younger, too, since I was in preschool in the late 70s.

 

And I hope anyone who doesn't get the offensiveness of blackface or the black stereotypes in the cartoons earlier will read the site I posted before.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Because I didn't grow up with blackface? How is that confusing?

When I watch(ed) those cartoons of exploding stuff in their face, usually dynamite, I never leaped to anything at all about black people. I sincerely figured it was soot/explosive or whatever. My kids too. They have no reference point to connect it to black people so they don't. Just like I have never had a joint, so the notion that of course scoot snacks are pot is completely mind boggling to me. To me: They are just extra yummy dog biscuits. Having growing teen boys, we have an extra understanding of a skinny shaggy haired guy who loves food.;)

 

I'm not naive. I know racism exists. But what is being called racist in *some* of these cartoons? That's just not my experience with black people or any white person I would associate with. It's not like white people sit around talking about black face. Maybe they should! On the Internet at least.:)

 

You keep pleading ignorance. Look at these clips:

 

An explosion in the face and the ensuing soot = not racist/blackface.

An explosion with soot in the face followed by slave imitations = racist.

African American cartoon characters = not racist.

African American cartoon characters with racial stereotypes/caricatures = racist.

 

And yes, by the late 70s, these were becoming less of an issue.

[momma2three]

Yes, I have to agree and I'm guessing I am younger, too, since I was in preschool in the late 70s.

 

And I hope anyone who doesn't get the offensiveness of blackface or the black stereotypes in the cartoons earlier will read the site I posted before.

 

I was in preschool in the mid-80's. :lol:

[Kathryn]

I'm probably younger than you are, but blackface, and its social repercussions, are such an important part of our cultural heritage here in the US, it is very surprising to me that this thread would be the first time someone has ever heard of it, or heard that it was a bad thing.

 

Agreeing, and I was born in 1979.

[PeacefulChaos]

Yes, I have to agree and I'm guessing I am younger, too, since I was in preschool in the late 70s.

 

And I hope anyone who doesn't get the offensiveness of blackface or the black stereotypes in the cartoons earlier will read the site I posted before.

 

I read the link and I do get it.

I will say though, that I have not personally ever seen any of the cartoons that were referenced on that site, with the exception of Looney Tunes - and with that one, I never saw whichever one was considered really racist. I had never heard of blackface before today, on this thread.

I was born in 1982. Maybe it just wasn't on my radar.

Like a PP said, when I was a kid with the things blowing up in someone's face, I saw just that. I had no reference point of 'blackface' to go from.

That just wasn't a part of my knowledge as a kid, and I don't think it's a part of my kids' knowledge, either. Do I occasionally see things now and think, 'Hmm...you can tell this is old, that's not the way they would portray that now'? Sure. (Heck, I had a relative email a picture of her daughter with a worksheet today, the letter 'I'. The picture on the worksheet to color was that of an Indian. Like, a native american, not someone from India. I don't consider it a horrible thing or anything, but I thought that to myself then, too...)

So maybe I am naive, but I certainly don't think it's in a bad way.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh for crying loud.

 

I think getting rid of them is PC and ignorant. For the same reasons I don't want abridged and "updated" versions of Mark Twain's works.

 

Not perpetuating them is the goal. We don't need to rewrite or get rid of historical examples of the times to do that.

 

In fact, I hazard that most are like me and see that we have come so far socially that it is a good thing we don't see racism, but just a man. It seems rather unfair to my mind to want equality but then when someone gives it accuse them of being racist for not holding the stereotype anymore.:001_huh:

I don't associate big lips with black people and I don't think my kids do either. I also don't associate big bums with brunettes despite Betty Boop. If anything, I associate big lips with collagen injections.

 

And why have those stereotypes started to die out? Partly because saying/showing them in public became unacceptable.

Not showing hurtful stereotypes in children's cartoons is neither PC nor ignorant. It is the right thing to do.

[Scrub Jay]

And why have those stereotypes started to die out? Partly because saying/showing them in public became unacceptable.

Not showing hurtful stereotypes in children's cartoons is neither PC nor ignorant. It is the right thing to do.

 

:iagree: And educating others who are oblivious to it is also important. Has zip to do being PC (I hate that term).

[ravinlunachick]

Leaving aside the race issue for a moment.... Dh and I giggled when we saw the warning label on a DVD of the first season of Sesame Street. Then we got to the part where a little girl is lost. She has no idea where she is and is scared.

 

So Gordon takes her up to his apartment for milk and cookies and a song. :001_huh:

 

Creeeeeeeeeepy. I don't think I will ever look at Gordon the same way again.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I read the link and I do get it.

I will say though, that I have not personally ever seen any of the cartoons that were referenced on that site, with the exception of Looney Tunes - and with that one, I never saw whichever one was considered really racist. I had never heard of blackface before today, on this thread.

I was born in 1982. Maybe it just wasn't on my radar.

Like a PP said, when I was a kid with the things blowing up in someone's face, I saw just that. I had no reference point of 'blackface' to go from.

That just wasn't a part of my knowledge as a kid, and I don't think it's a part of my kids' knowledge, either. Do I occasionally see things now and think, 'Hmm...you can tell this is old, that's not the way they would portray that now'? Sure. (Heck, I had a relative email a picture of her daughter with a worksheet today, the letter 'I'. The picture on the worksheet to color was that of an Indian. Like, a native american, not someone from India. I don't consider it a horrible thing or anything, but I thought that to myself then, too...)

So maybe I am naive, but I certainly don't think it's in a bad way.

 

No offense, but you know why you, Martha, and others can be oblivious to it?

Because you can. You don't have to live it.

 

It's the same reason someone can see a white customer and black customer be treated differently by the same clerk in similar situations and come up with a reason why it just can't be because of race.

You have that privilege. Not all of us do.

[PeacefulChaos]

No offense, but you know why you, Martha, and others can be oblivious to it?

Because you can. You don't have to live it.

 

It's the same reason someone can see a white customer and black customer be treated differently by the same clerk in similar situations and come up with a reason why it just can't be because of race.

You have that privilege. Not all of us do.

 

I don't disagree with you there.

But I don't think it's a bad thing for the kids or I to not know, either, kwim? It's just different experiences. :)

[Scrub Jay]

I don't disagree with you there.

But I don't think it's a bad thing for the kids or I to not know, either, kwim? It's just different experiences. :)

 

Except if (general) we forget history then we repeat it.

 

I personally feel this is too important not to have cultural knowledge about.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't disagree with you there.

But I don't think it's a bad thing for the kids or I to not know, either, kwim? It's just different experiences. :)

 

It is when it is dismissive of what others experience. When you (general you) say "well, it doesn't look racist to me so it isn't" and dismiss how others view it as being "PC and ignorant" then it is more than "different experiences."

[Murphy101]

You keep pleading ignorance. Look at these clips:

 

An explosion in the face and the ensuing soot = not racist/blackface.

An explosion with soot in the face followed by slave imitations = racist.

African American cartoon characters = not racist.

African American cartoon characters with racial stereotypes/caricatures = racist.

 

And yes, by the late 70s, these were becoming less of an issue.

 

Maybe if you would stop thinking of me as a lying racist for a minute you would have noticed back on post #95 that I wrote that I agreed that was awful and not something I would find funny at all.:glare:

 

However, those are not at all in the same category as peppe the love struck skunk or the Elmer Fudd styled one. And those were the only ones I have said I didn't have a problem with like you do.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Martha

[Scrub Jay]

However, those are not at all in the same category as peppe the love struck skunk or the Elmer Fudd styled one. And those were the only ones I have said I didn't have a problem wi like you do.

 

All This and Rabbit Stew is racist. I just rewatched it to try and see how someone could view it as a black Elmer Fudd and just cannot understand how this cartoon isn't seen as racist by people. Did you visit the link I shared by any chance? At least visit this page which even mentions that Bugs cartoon.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe if you would stop thinking of me as a lying racist for a minute you would have noticed back on post #95 that I wrote that I agreed that was awful and not something I would find funny at all.:glare:

 

However, those are not at all in the same category as peppe the love struck skunk or the Elmer Fudd styled one. And those were the only ones I have said I didn't have a problem wi like you do.

 

They are right in line with the Elmer Fudd one.

 

The (as you call him) "black Elmer Fudd" slouches along dragging the rifle behind him which is consistent with the stereotype of African Americans as lazy. His features are consistent with the stereotypes presented of African Americans during that time. His dialect is exaggerated (much more so that Elmer Fudd) and consistent with the "slave dialect" of the (very few) African Americans shown in films at the time.

 

To be fair, Fudd's portrayal of being dimwitted with a speech impediment is not particularly endearing to me either.

[LucyStoner]

Just so that people unfamiliar with blackface don't think we are talking about only soot blown on people:

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=blackface&hl=en&client=safari&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=aqwtUJaOBcGyyAHTnoCQAw&ved=0CFMQsAQ&biw=480&bih=268#p=0

 

The way that blackface was done was based on stereotypes and exaggerated skin color and features. Huge red lips, midnight black skin, primate like features. Storylines about hurtful stereotypes. Watermelon eating, ignorance, outsized sexual libido, agressive pursuit of white women, laziness, wishing to be a slave etc. Blackface is not harmless and it is not about accidents with chimneys. Minstrel actors were slicking on black greasy makeup prior to the Civil War and well into the 20th century. I remember a character played by Ronald Reagon in the early 40s defending blackface humor. I choked. I had checked out a ton of movies with Ronald Reagan to watch to pass the time while I was nursing my oldest (I know, why was I interested? Who knows.) It's really sick to think about how long this lasted. That "black Elmer Fudd" was not drawn to look like just some bumbling black hunter. The character was drawn and portrayed in the legacy of "coon" characters traditionally played by whites in blackface. Elmer Fudd replaced the earlier offensive hunter character.

Edited August 17, 2012 by kijipt

[Murphy101]

I read the link and I do get it.

I will say though, that I have not personally ever seen any of the cartoons that were referenced on that site, with the exception of Looney Tunes - and with that one, I never saw whichever one was considered really racist. I had never heard of blackface before today, on this thread.

I was born in 1982. Maybe it just wasn't on my radar.

Like a PP said, when I was a kid with the things blowing up in someone's face, I saw just that. I had no reference point of 'blackface' to go from.

That just wasn't a part of my knowledge as a kid, and I don't think it's a part of my kids' knowledge, either. Do I occasionally see things now and think, 'Hmm...you can tell this is old, that's not the way they would portray that now'? Sure. (Heck, I had a relative email a picture of her daughter with a worksheet today, the letter 'I'. The picture on the worksheet to color was that of an Indian. Like, a native american, not someone from India. I don't consider it a horrible thing or anything, but I thought that to myself then, too...)

So maybe I am naive, but I certainly don't think it's in a bad way.

 

Thank you.:)