Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Tom & Jerry Cartoons Carry Racism Warning

  1. #1

    Default Tom & Jerry Cartoons Carry Racism Warning

    Quote Originally Posted by BBC
    Tom and Jerry cartoons carry racism warning

    Tom and Jerry cartoons on television are being accompanied by a warning that they may depict scenes of "racial prejudice".



    The classic cat and mouse cartoons, some made more than 70 years ago, carry a warning for subscribers to Amazon Prime Instant Video.

    There have been claims of racist stereotyping in the depiction of a black maid in the cartoon series.

    Amazon's warning says such prejudice was once "commonplace" in US society.

    Tom and Jerry, once a staple of children's television on British television, is being presented with a cautionary note about "ethnic and racial prejudices".

    Amazon's streaming subscription service, formerly branded as LoveFilm, includes the cartoons in its comedy collection.

    But Tom and Jerry: The Complete Second Volume is accompanied by the caution: "Tom and Jerry shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today."

    The wording is similar to disclaimers accompanying some collections of the cartoons on DVD.

    The warning was attacked as "empty-headed" by cultural commentator and professor of sociology, Frank Furedi, who said it was a form of a "false piousness" and a type of censorship which "seems to be sweeping cultural life".

    "We're reading history backwards, judging people in the past by our values," said Prof Furedi from the University of Kent.

    Tom and Jerry was first produced by the MGM film studio in 1940. The cartoons, directed by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera and produced by Fred Quimby, ran until 1957, with carefully choreographed chase scenes set in the homes and gardens of suburban America.

    There were more than a hundred short films made in this original series, winning seven academy awards. These included the Cat Concerto in 1946, the Two Mouseketeers in 1951 and Johann Mouse in 1952.

    In the subsequent decades there have been numerous re-launched television versions of the series, with varying styles and varying degrees of critical approval.

    The claims of racism are longstanding. When the original versions were shown on US television in the 1960s some scenes were edited.

    There have also been complaints about the characters smoking cigarettes, with changes made to recent screenings.

    Steve Abrahart, senior lecturer in animation at De Montfort University, said the quality of animation in the early Tom and Jerry films was "superb".

    The cartoons are still seen as being among the best made, he said.

    But Mr Abrahart said the attention to detail of the early versions was lost in some of the later re-makes.

    On the question of the portrayals of race and ethnicity, he said today's animation students were not shocked by what they saw in old cartoons.

    He said they understood how attitudes changed over time.

    As well as racial stereotypes, he said there were questions about the representation of women and other nationalities in animations from the 1940s.

    The idea of running warnings ahead of potentially upsetting moments in films or books has become a controversial topic in US universities.

    There have been calls for the use of "trigger warnings" which could flag up to students that they are about to come across descriptions of physical brutality, aggressive language or sexual violence.

    The suggestion that these should be inserted into lessons about classic texts has angered some academics.

    Prof Furedi said calls for such trigger warnings were a form of "narcissism", with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.

    "A tolerant society needs to discuss disturbing art," he said.
    "... such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today"

    Well thank you Amazon for teaching me right from wrong.

    And they don't even do that correctly. The 'depiction' is not wrong, the 'depiction' is correct; negro maids were commonplace. Do they not understand the word?

    What a load of horseshit.
    Last edited by Timbuk2; 10-01-2014 at 08:06 AM.

  2. #2
    I saw this. I think it's dumb to include the warnings.

    Will Amazon be including warnings on everything that includes racism, stereotyping, or slavery now? It's in things other than cartoons about a cat and a mouse, after all. Like cartoons about elephants.

    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  3. #3
    I'm waiting for the Surgeon General's warning about smoking in cartoons. That not all bad guys smoke, and not all smokers are bad people. Thats what I remember from my cartoons.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    I'm waiting for the Surgeon General's warning about smoking in cartoons. That not all bad guys smoke, and not all smokers are bad people. Thats what I remember from my cartoons.
    In Turkey they blot out smoking in TV-series, so be careful what you wish for.

    As for the warning; why shouldn't it be wrong even in retrospect? I for example have always held the opinion that slave owners in christian countries could only justify their ways by twisting their christian morality in a very ugly knot. Same thing with depicting all black maids as somewhat dumb big mama's, even if that was the way white folks liked their black maids, the stereotype was offensive even back then.
    Congratulations America

  5. #5
    The weird thing is not just is it odd to view 1940s cartoons from our current perspective, but I don't see what's especially racist there.

    Is it wrong to portray a maid as being black? Why? I'm sorry but today when I've stayed in American hotels in the South almost all service staff have been either black or Hispanic. So its accurate today to portray it let alone 74 years ago.

    Maybe we should deal with real racism and perhaps ask why still today such jobs are filled by ethnic minorities rather than bemoaning beloved and well meaning children's cartoons.

    This helps nobody.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The weird thing is not just is it odd to view 1940s cartoons from our current perspective, but I don't see what's especially racist there.

    Is it wrong to portray a maid as being black? Why? I'm sorry but today when I've stayed in American hotels in the South almost all service staff have been either black or Hispanic. So its accurate today to portray it let alone 74 years ago.

    Maybe we should deal with real racism and perhaps ask why still today such jobs are filled by ethnic minorities rather than bemoaning beloved and well meaning children's cartoons.

    This helps nobody.
    We already know why those jobs are filled by ethnic minorities - 98% has to do with immigration and culture and possibly 2% with lingering racism. Facts made up on the spot but the bottom line is its a cultural issue and/or immigration of low skilled labor issue.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Facts made up on the spot
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  8. #8
    TIL the black woman in the Tom & Jerry cartoons was a maid and not the homeowner. I never picked up on that as a kid.

  9. #9
    I don't think the issue is that the maid was black, its that the black maid was made to be very stereotypical. the type of role thats made warner brothers uncomfortable with releasing certain loony tune episodes.

    I still don't think its strong enough that kids will pick up on it...
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  10. #10
    This is the maid in Tom & Jerry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammy_archetype

    This warning is no great harm and nothing to get butthurt over, while it may encourage at least three people to think about these matters, eg. about the whole issue of applying modern values to "ancient" history.

    In Sweden white people are up in arms right now over the impending end of civilisation that's going to be brought on by removing the bit about Pippi Longstocking's dad being the "Negro King" and never mind the fascists trying to discourage us from calling "chocolate balls" "nigger-balls".
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  11. #11
    I'm not sure that changing the past in order to ease modern consciences or sensibilities is necessary, though. My post about the casual stereotyping in Dumbo aside (and that is far from the only example), it's all over many films, art pieces, and works of literature that are classics today by any standard. Should Gone With the Wind be edited to make sure that the horrors of chattel slavery aren't glossed over?

    Hell, it's not even only race. A lot of these same works of art/cinema/literature show women as being inferior, or only existing to please/serve men. It happened, and just like racism sexism still exists. What about homophobia, or religious intolerance? The possibilities of offense to groups with legitimate grievances are limitless, so my hyperbolic heart wants to know of there should there in the future be a list of inaccurate portrayals as warnings for every creative work that ever has or will exist?
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    In Sweden white people are up in arms right now over the impending end of civilisation that's going to be brought on by removing the bit about Pippi Longstocking's dad being the "Negro King" and never mind the fascists trying to discourage us from calling "chocolate balls" "nigger-balls".
    We had the candy called nigger-kisses, that was changed allegedly because of complaints etc., but actually as a marketing stunt by the manufacturer. Shitloads of free publicity, though it wasn't all that successful in the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I'm not sure that changing the past in order to ease modern consciences or sensibilities is necessary, though. My post about the casual stereotyping in Dumbo aside (and that is far from the only example), it's all over many films, art pieces, and works of literature that are classics today by any standard. Should Gone With the Wind be edited to make sure that the horrors of chattel slavery aren't glossed over?

    Hell, it's not even only race. A lot of these same works of art/cinema/literature show women as being inferior, or only existing to please/serve men. It happened, and just like racism sexism still exists. What about homophobia, or religious intolerance? The possibilities of offense to groups with legitimate grievances are limitless, so my hyperbolic heart wants to know of there should there in the future be a list of inaccurate portrayals as warnings for every creative work that ever has or will exist?
    Providing context is not changing the past, unless you think the signs next to a painting at a museum also change it. That said, you're right that stereotyping of all kinds is in a lot of works of art. Race is just a bit more sensitive these days than the other types, I guess. Anyway, providing context makes you understand any piece of art more and usually adds to the experience Plus Amazon is doing this by themselves, are they not? As a private company, they're allowed to do so, if they think this is what their customers want. Definitely better than just pulling it.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Providing context is not changing the past, unless you think the signs next to a painting at a museum also change it. That said, you're right that stereotyping of all kinds is in a lot of works of art. Race is just a bit more sensitive these days than the other types, I guess. Anyway, providing context makes you understand any piece of art more and usually adds to the experience Plus Amazon is doing this by themselves, are they not? As a private company, they're allowed to do so, if they think this is what their customers want. Definitely better than just pulling it.
    Signs next to a painting, no, and even this warning label I think is dumb doesn't involve actually changing anything.

    The post immediately preceding mine was talking about changing Pippi Longstocking, though, and that makes me sad.

    I don't know, I guess I just feel we're beginning to wander closer and closer to censoring art to make it palatable to the masses. So yes, this is preferable to pulling it, I simply don't believe it is necessary to warn. Pretty much anything can be offensive or trigger bad feelings in someone or a group of people.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Signs next to a painting, no, and even this warning label I think is dumb doesn't involve actually changing anything.

    The post immediately preceding mine was talking about changing Pippi Longstocking, though, and that makes me sad.

    I don't know, I guess I just feel we're beginning to wander closer and closer to censoring art to make it palatable to the masses. So yes, this is preferable to pulling it, I simply don't believe it is necessary to warn. Pretty much anything can be offensive or trigger bad feelings in someone or a group of people.
    Unfortunately there's not much you can do about a company not wishing to offend its customers - it's good business policy, I suppose. But yeah, pretty much anything can be offensive to some people.

    Somewhat related, but tintin in congo is listed as an adult book in a bunch of libraries/stores because of its (very) racist/colonialist depictions of the congo. Some editions also do come with an explanation, possibly more to show that the writer wasn't a horrible racist
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    TIL the black woman in the Tom & Jerry cartoons was a maid and not the homeowner. I never picked up on that as a kid.
    LOL exactly. I always assumed it was the homeowner not a maid. So did my wife when I mentioned this story to her. I'm not convinced this is even that racist and I think alternatives like removing the character to replace her with a white woman are not helpful at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    The post immediately preceding mine was talking about changing Pippi Longstocking, though, and that makes me sad.

    I don't know, I guess I just feel we're beginning to wander closer and closer to censoring art to make it palatable to the masses. So yes, this is preferable to pulling it, I simply don't believe it is necessary to warn. Pretty much anything can be offensive or trigger bad feelings in someone or a group of people.
    Agreed Lolli, it is the mindless strolling toward art (in whatever form) being censored that gets my goat.

    And yes, carrying a warning is certainly better than pulling a piece entirely, or erasing offensive parts á la Pippi Longstocking.

    But, if you must have a warning, have it state 'Some viewers may find this content offensive' or similar, rather than the pontificating sanctimony of 'This is wrong' which Amazon is using here. Makes me think 'shove your warning up your arse, don't tell me what's right and what's wrong I'll decide that for myself'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Somewhat related, but tintin in congo is listed as an adult book in a bunch of libraries/stores because of its (very) racist/colonialist depictions of the congo. Some editions also do come with an explanation, possibly more to show that the writer wasn't a horrible racist
    Tintin in the Congo was rather difficult to find and purchase - I recall my ex-fiancé struggling to locate it to buy as a gift for my birthday. I suppose the reason for that is as you describe.

    I'll post an excerpt on this from Wiki, as it's relevant to this whole contemporaneous attitudes theme we're discussing here.


    In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, several campaigners and writers characterised Tintin in the Congo as racist due to its portrayal of the Congolese as infantile and stupid.[40] According to Tom McCarthy, Hergé depicted the Congolese as "good at heart but backwards and lazy, in need of European mastery."[41] There had been no such controversy when originally published,[42] because it was only following the Wind of Change and decolonisation, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, that Western attitudes towards indigenous Africans shifted.[10] Harry Thompson argued that one must view Tintin in the Congo in the context of European society in the 1930s and 1940s, and that Hergé had not written the book to be "deliberately racist". He argued that it reflected the average Belgian view of Congolese people at the time, one that was more "patronising" than malevolent.[34] Jean-Marie Apostolidès supported this idea,[43] as did biographer Benoît Peeters, who asserted, "Hergé was no more racist than the next man."[14] After meeting Hergé in the 1980s, Farr commented, "You couldn't have met someone who was more open and less racist."[44]

    And yes, as for that last comment, the irony indeed is that Tintin was portrayed as anti-racist. Scenes like in Tintin and the Blue Lotus where he reprimands a westerner in China for beating a Chinese rickshaw boy.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is the maid in Tom & Jerry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammy_archetype

    This warning is no great harm and nothing to get butthurt over, while it may encourage at least three people to think about these matters, eg. about the whole issue of applying modern values to "ancient" history.

    In Sweden white people are up in arms right now over the impending end of civilisation that's going to be brought on by removing the bit about Pippi Longstocking's dad being the "Negro King" and never mind the fascists trying to discourage us from calling "chocolate balls" "nigger-balls".
    I grew up watching Tom & Jerry cartoons....while also reading Pippi Longstocking novels. I can remember by mom and dad reading bed-time stories, and playing classical music, long before they became Hollywood hit movies. (Fantasia)

    For that mattter, I remember "Black Sambo" from my childhood storeytelling history. At the time, I thought it meant melting was more important than being solid....even when those definitions were confusing, and duplicitous.
    Last edited by GGT; 10-04-2014 at 07:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •