I've read many animation boards, though most of the opnions about banned cartoons from WWII ("Der Fuerher's Face", "Blitz Wolf") and other banned cartoons with racial stereotypes ("All This & Rabbit Stew", early Tom & Jerry shorts) are from animation/film buffs. Though I've only found good comments about Speedy Gonzales at the Rate it All site, though nothing on cartoons that have been banned for several decades or heavily edited.

I would like to read some insight from ordinary people since I feel like one of the few people who tend to look around the stereotypes when it comes to certain movies, cartoons, etc. from the early/mid 20th century.


Keep in mind, these cartoons were originally aimed towards adults since they were played before movies like "Casablanca". As for stereotypes, everybody were caricatured from celebrities of the era (Clark Gable with huge ears for example) to even a typical white person.


I like the fact Disney and Warner Bros. finally have the guts to release their "Un PC" cartoons on DVD. Though Warner Bros. barely got started last year with several cartoons with minor racial gags  and three, out of several, WWII  "Private Snafu" shorts (only made for the troops) which means that more cartoons from WWII that are considered "Un PC" and  other shorts like from the "censored 11" could be on future sets.


BTW, I'm not an animation buff, but I tend to watch them because of historical interest and some I've seen are actualy funny, which I can look past the content. Then again, there's still certain stereotypes on tv, movies, animation to this day. Like the Miss Swan sketch, which features a white woman playing an Asian stereotype (I liked the sktech, though over done a millions of times). This being said by a hispanic male with born with a slight deformity on my mouth, though was fixed for my entire childhood and teen years.


For example: "All This and Rabbit Stew", an early Bugs Bunny cartoon where he heckles a hunter, not much different than an typcial Bugs vs. Elmer Fudd cartoon. Also feature several gags used in other cartoons like the log chase on "The Big Snooze". (It's a public domain cartoon, which means was never copyrighted and can be found on cheap public domain tapes and some public domain DVDs)


"Der Fuerher's Face", one of the greatest WWII propaganda shorts I've seen (featured on "Walt Disney Treasures: On The Front Lines" and the second volume of the Donald Duck set), which is anti Nazi. Many of the images maybe taken out of content, but have be considered that it was made in WWII. It's about Donald having a nightmare that he's part of a Nazi regime and forced to work at a factory and had to salute the evil dictator. At first, I thought it would be a serious cartoon, but it's actually funny and the song, from band leader Spike Jones, is also catchy. Also the only Donald Duck cartoon that won an Oscar for best animated short in 1942.


Also thumbs up for the banned "Drawn Together" episode for having the guts to tackle something "South Park" hadn't done (yet) since these cartoons are a part of history and shouldn't be locked away as if they've never existed. 

It was about Foxxy Love turning into a 40's racial caricature and sent to a prison camp to get erased completely and Captain Hero have to save her, It featured a message about not getting rid of racial cartoons as if they've never existed.

Mickey Mouse, though had some banned toons of it's own, repesents Disney, which have banned "Song of the South". Though it's rumoured to be released this year and had released their WWII cartoons and other previously "banned" cartoons  a few years earlier.

I can't look around these stereotypes b/c they honestly hurt when I watched them as a kid. I don't believe in the excuse, "well, that was the times" because it was wrong and hurtful regardless.

Watching Daffy Duck slap Adolph Hitler was a joy, whereas today it'd be Adolph Hitler butt #$@#@ a duck, and I doubt I'd be laughing as hard.

I like those old cartoons.  They are a part of our pop-culture history, for better and for worse.  However, I would rather not have children get exposed to them because children have not yet seen enough of life to know the difference between a prejudicial stereotype and all the shades of what it means to be Black, Mexican, Jewish, or  what have you.  Children don't know enough history to know the real meaning behind the watermelon-eating negro and the lazy Latino. 
Heck, we used to think everybody in Hawaii wore grass skirts and leis, and played slack-key guitar!  What did we know about Hawaii at six?  That's what the cartoons showed us.  Of course, as we got older we learned what Hawaii was really like from watcing "Hawaii 5-0" and "Magnum P.I."
;D
I remember having to explain to my little brother that the flag of Germany did not have a swastika on it!  He thought it did.  He said he saw it in one of those old WWII cartoons.  I must have been twelve at the time, and we were drawing pictures, and he drew a frikkin' swastika flag on a ship.  I was like, "Stuart, do you know what that is?"  He says, "It's the flag of Germany. That's a German ship."  Uh-oh!  We have a problem!  I had to explain, with my rudimentary knowledge about who the Nazis were and what happened in WWII, why he shouldn't draw swastikas!  His first grade teacher was Jewish.  Imagine the call home!  "Your son is drawing swastikas in class, what the hell is the matter with you people!"
:o

We cant pretend that these cartoons never existed, or that people never thought this way.  Yes, our history is covered with pieces of racism.  Yes, it was wrong.  But how are we to make sure it doesn't happen again if we dont have the past to learn from. 

Those who dont know history are bound to repeat it.

These cartoons are part of our history, and pop culture and should not forgotten because some writer at the time thought a joke about Bugs Bunny wearing blackface was funny.  Make the cartoons available or never learn from past mistakes!

"Daffy the Commando", where he smacked Adolf Hitler with a mallet, is also classic.  :D

Also liked "Hare Meets Hare" with Bugs Bunny against Goerring, a Nazi, which featured a scene that would inspire "What's Opera Doc?". (It was shown on "Toonheads" when Cartoon Network still aired Looney Tunes).

It also aired a clip of a Bugs Bunny cartoon where he's against Japanese soldiers and a few shorts like "Blitz Wolf" and "Scrap Happy Daffy".




I agree that young children shouldn't be watching them, though these cartoons weren't originally intended for kids, though were mostly aimed for adults. Though it kid appeal to kids and was marketed to them on tv  in the 1950's.


It would make a good essay for tweens that are taught about WWII in history class though.

Bring 'em back! They're cartoons people. I never understood why people complain about stuff like this when they possess the power to change the channel. There will always be things in this world that will offend some people. I'm offended by the smell of broccoli cooking. I also try to avoid it whenever possible. In the cartoon 'The Early Bird gets the Worm', many people see racism because the bird is a blackbird. I see a bird and worm who decide it's better to work together to save their skins from the wolf.

Bring 'em back! They're cartoons people. I never understood why people complain about stuff like this when they possess the power to change the channel. There will always be things in this world that will offend some people. I'm offended by the smell of broccoli cooking. I also try to avoid it whenever possible. In the cartoon 'The Early Bird gets the Worm', many people see racism because the bird is a blackbird. I see a bird and worm who decide it's better to work together to save their skins from the wolf.


Have you ever SEEN some of these cartoons they made in the 1920s and 1930s?  Speedy Gonzales and Mammy Two-Shoes nothing!  The "un-PC" cartoons from the pre-WWII era look like they were made by the KKK.  Of course, Klansman are too stupid to be able to draw frame-by-frame animation, so....

When speaking of these un PC cartoons the usual ones used are the cartoons of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian.
The question rarely turns to the fact that there were many stereotypical cartoons of the Irish and Italians that have been
hidden, and remain so, because of compaints by their accompanying leaders.  I rarely hear of anyone as eager to show
them, or see them. 

What about Boris and Natasha Badunov from 'The Bullwinkle Show'...the Soviet leaders claimed that Boris and Natasha were portraying Russians as all bad and evil...and the cartoon was meant to be a satire of the Cold War...

Hey..I still watch it though.

But cartoons which have overtly racial themes, I have a problem with letting young children watch, because three, four, and even five year olds might not understand the stereotypes those cartoons have are old-fashioned and untrue.

Bring 'em back! They're cartoons people. I never understood why people complain about stuff like this when they possess the power to change the channel. There will always be things in this world that will offend some people. I'm offended by the smell of broccoli cooking. I also try to avoid it whenever possible. In the cartoon 'The Early Bird gets the Worm', many people see racism because the bird is a blackbird. I see a bird and worm who decide it's better to work together to save their skins from the wolf.


Apathy is terrible. They may only be cartoons to you but they are evidence of something demeaning and hateful to others. If you can't understand why others complain, then maybe you should see it from their angle.

What about Boris and Natasha Badunov from 'The Bullwinkle Show'...the Soviet leaders claimed that Boris and Natasha were portraying Russians as all bad and evil...and the cartoon was meant to be a satire of the Cold War...

Hey..I still watch it though.

But cartoons which have overtly racial themes, I have a problem with letting young children watch, because three, four, and even five year olds might not understand the stereotypes those cartoons have are old-fashioned and untrue.


Nit-pick time: It's actually Boris Badenov & Natasha Fatale.

We cant pretend that these cartoons never existed, or that people never thought this way.  Yes, our history is covered with pieces of racism.  Yes, it was wrong.  But how are we to make sure it doesn't happen again if we dont have the past to learn from. 

Those who dont know history are bound to repeat it.

These cartoons are part of our history, and pop culture and should not forgotten because some writer at the time thought a joke about Bugs Bunny wearing blackface was funny.  Make the cartoons available or never learn from past mistakes!



are these 'tunes presented in an exploitative manner, i.e. "those were the good ol' days when you could get away with doing this!" ? if so then it's wrong.

otherwise it would be appropriate to display them as part of a "Racism in America" exhibit

Coming from a Leftie, PC sucks.

Coming from a Leftie, PC sucks.

Political correctness isn't really a liberal phenomon.  You could call it "far left,"  I suppose.  The political continuum is shaped like a horseshoe.  The campus PC police who want to prescribe what names you can use to refer to what people have more in common with the militant fascists, such as Ann Coulter, who said "If you don't hate Bill Clinton, you don't love your country.
A while back, the high school in the very PC town of Amherst, Mass., was going to put on a production of West Side Story.  Some very PC agitators started raising a ruckus about how West Side Story was RACIST!  Instead of telling the PC whiners to stick it where the sun don't shine, Amherst High knuckled under and canceled the production.  As far as I'm concerned, this was a most illiberal thing to do.
There was no bellyaching from the PC crowd when The Vagina Monologues came to Amherst High.  Each student had to have a signed permission slip to attend the VMs, which were presented after school hours, but still...
At least the VMs got the town of Amherst on the O'Reilly Factor!
My only complaint about the VMs is that they're hackneyed and tiresome.  More like the Vagina Monotony, I say!
:P

I gather this thread is about the publication of some defamatory cartoons by a Danish newpaper group mocking Islam and Allah??

Question 1.  Do Islamic fundamentalists have reasoning ability?

Question 2. Did Christians threaten to blow up their oppressors when jokes where made re the Pope, Jesus Christ,(Life of Brian) and other films were Christianity is mocked and defamed.

I gather this thread is about the publication of some defamatory cartoons by a Danish newpaper group mocking Islam and Allah??

Question 1.  Do Islamic fundamentalists have reasoning ability?

Question 2. Did Christians threaten to blow up their oppressors when jokes where made re the Pope, Jesus Christ,(Life of Brian) and other films were Christianity is mocked and defamed.

If you want the pitfalls of organized religion made clear to you in a fun way, watch Monty Python's "The Life of Brian."  Pope John Paul II banned the film in 1979 as blasphemous for Roman Catholics to watch.  The worst thing about a movie like "The Life of Brian" is it may make a pious person pause and say "hmmm....wait a minute!"

With a few exceptions of severe mental illness or retardation, human beings all have innate reasoning ability.  However, human beings are subject to fear, envy, rage, and greed.  Any one of these frailties can sap an individual's reasoning ability.  We see it in religious zealotry, we see it in ethnic and racial tensions, we see it in personal insecurity, we see it in corporate nastiness.  Islamic fundamentalism is just ONE WAY to compromise one's reasoning ability, and only a small percentage of people suffering from compromised reasoning ability are Islamic fundametnalists.  The thing is, Islamic fundamentalists are the unreasonable people our government has propagandized us to fear most!  And there it is...fear.  If you were not compromised in reasoning ability yourself, you may place your fears more reasonably than with Islamic fundamentalists. 

But again, that requires you to ask questions instead of just taking as gospel truth whatever our dominant political culture crams down your throat.  There's a reason why conservative politicians love conservative clerics, you know!
::) :P

Hi Maxwell Smart
yeah I think I get what your saying here, and yeap I have seen Life of Brian, and despite my Christian upbringing was able to see the crackpot hilarity and the pokes at piety in it, without being outraged to the point of wanting to club someone to death!

Thing is, if as you say everyone has reasoning abilty what makes fundamentalists go nuts? and how come they always wanna blow people up including themselves??  fear and rage shouldn't sap reasoning ability - but I agree it seems to, and this is were I get muddled    ;D 
Is it perhaps because they don't and have never lived in a democracy?

If you want the pitfalls of organized religion made clear to you in a fun way, watch Monty Python's "The Life of Brian."  Pope John Paul II banned the film in 1979 as blasphemous for Roman Catholics to watch.  The worst thing about a movie like "The Life of Brian" is it may make a pious person pause and say "hmmm....wait a minute!"

With a few exceptions of severe mental illness or retardation, human beings all have innate reasoning ability.  However, human beings are subject to fear, envy, rage, and greed.  Any one of these frailties can sap an individual's reasoning ability.  We see it in religious zealotry, we see it in ethnic and racial tensions, we see it in personal insecurity, we see it in corporate nastiness.  Islamic fundamentalism is just ONE WAY to compromise one's reasoning ability, and only a small percentage of people suffering from compromised reasoning ability are Islamic fundametnalists.  The thing is, Islamic fundamentalists are the unreasonable people our government has propagandized us to fear most!  And there it is...fear.  If you were not compromised in reasoning ability yourself, you may place your fears more reasonably than with Islamic fundamentalists. 

But again, that requires you to ask questions instead of just taking as gospel truth whatever our dominant political culture crams down your throat.  There's a reason why conservative politicians love conservative clerics, you know!
::) :P



Sorry to hijack the thread, but isn't the part in Life of Brian where they suddenly go into space hilarious?!  ;D

Sorry to hijack the thread, but isn't the part in Life of Brian where they suddenly go into space hilarious?!  ;D


actually, I always hated that part

actually, I always hated that part


WHAT????  >:(  ;D

actually, I always hated that part

I'm not big on that scene myself, but it gave Terry Gilliam something to do.  I think the Pythons wanted to do that scene to make a statement about how little we really know of the things out in the universe.  The religious presume there is a God with no proof, the UFO believers believe we've been visited by extraterrestrials, but their proof is also scant.  I dunno, just a guess.

I'm not big on that scene myself, but it gave Terry Gilliam something to do.  I think the Pythons wanted to do that scene to make a statement about how little we really know of the things out in the universe.  The religious presume there is a God with no proof, the UFO believers believe we've been visited by extraterrestrials, but their proof is also scant.  I dunno, just a guess.


I understand why people wouldn't find it funny, but I find it hilarious.  How cheesy and unexpected was that scene?  ;D

visit the Jim Crow museum

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

Watching Daffy Duck slap Adolph Hitler was a joy, whereas today it'd be Adolph Hitler butt #$@#@ a duck, and I doubt I'd be laughing as hard.


Wait...I keep reading this post over and over again, and although it is vaguely hilarious, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

If you want the pitfalls of organized religion made clear to you in a fun way, watch Monty Python's "The Life of Brian."  Pope John Paul II banned the film in 1979 as blasphemous for Roman Catholics to watch.  The worst thing about a movie like "The Life of Brian" is it may make a pious person pause and say "hmmm....wait a minute!"

With a few exceptions of severe mental illness or retardation, human beings all have innate reasoning ability.  However, human beings are subject to fear, envy, rage, and greed.  Any one of these frailties can sap an individual's reasoning ability.  We see it in religious zealotry, we see it in ethnic and racial tensions, we see it in personal insecurity, we see it in corporate nastiness.  Islamic fundamentalism is just ONE WAY to compromise one's reasoning ability, and only a small percentage of people suffering from compromised reasoning ability are Islamic fundametnalists.  The thing is, Islamic fundamentalists are the unreasonable people our government has propagandized us to fear most!  And there it is...fear.  If you were not compromised in reasoning ability yourself, you may place your fears more reasonably than with Islamic fundamentalists. 

But again, that requires you to ask questions instead of just taking as gospel truth whatever our dominant political culture crams down your throat.  There's a reason why conservative politicians love conservative clerics, you know!
::) :P
I keep wondering if fools like Jerry Falwell wish grievious bodily harm on the people responsible for 'The Last Temptation of Christ' movie.....

I keep wondering if fools like Jerry Falwell wish grievious bodily harm on the people responsible for 'The Last Temptation of Christ' movie.....

They would...but it would be bad for business.  You see, charlatans like Falwell and Pat Robertson worship Mammon--the God of wealth--more than Christ Himself.  I seem to remember back in 1988 it was the Catholic Right (guys like Bill Donahue of the Cathoic League) who were making a big stink and parading around outside the cinemas, waving signs, and yelling at patrons not to buy tickets.  I dunno, I saw the movie in the theater and thought it's greatest offense was how dull it was.  I fell asleep a couple of times!
:P

I have actually been petitioning for years for Disney to release "Song Of The South".  It is a shame to me that James Basket's greatest work has not been seen for decades.  His protrayal as Uncle Remus won him an Oscar, the first given to an African-American Male.

I simply look at works like that as being acceptible for their time and place.  Things were much different then.

Then again, have many of you seen the rap videos of the last 20 years?  They often have more stereotypes (and more offensive stereotypes) then those cartoons did.

And I do not think that Speedy Gonzales is any worse then the video "Rico Suave" by Geraldo.  They both played off of stereotypes of Hispanic culture.

I simply do not like "Double Standards".  This "It's ok for me, but forbidden for you" simply does not wash in my belief.

I have actually been petitioning for years for Disney to release "Song Of The South".  It is a shame to me that James Basket's greatest work has not been seen for decades.  His protrayal as Uncle Remus won him an Oscar, the first given to an African-American Male.

I simply look at works like that as being acceptible for their time and place.  Things were much different then.

Then again, have many of you seen the rap videos of the last 20 years?  They often have more stereotypes (and more offensive stereotypes) then those cartoons did.

And I do not think that Speedy Gonzales is any worse then the video "Rico Suave" by Geraldo.  They both played off of stereotypes of Hispanic culture.

I simply do not like "Double Standards".  This "It's ok for me, but forbidden for you" simply does not wash in my belief.

No comment on Uncle Remus, but I never saw Speedy Gonzales as a negative stereotype.  Stereotyping has some inherently negative aspects, and Speedy definitely played on stereotypes--however, Speedy Gonzales was smarter, faster, and more clever than the Gringos.  Speedy kicked @ss! 
What about that Canadian Mountie from the old cartoons?  He was pretty goofy, wasn't he?

What about that Canadian Mountie from the old cartoons?  He was pretty goofy, wasn't he?


Dudly Doright.  Yes, he was great also.  I always found it funny that his horse was smarter then he was.

Of course, Dudly used to air with another Un-PC cartoon, the "Go-Go Gophers".  This is another series that will never be seen again, since it stereotyped Indians.  Of course, it does not matter that the Gophers were the good guys and always won in the end (Over a French speaking Wolf if I remember right).

It's been rumored that "Song of the South" (true or not?) will be on DVD later this year...from the fact Disney released their WWII material a few years ago, it's a possiblity...

Though the irony is that The Disney Channel appear to overexpose the "dumb blonde" stereotypes... not offended , but most of the shows are just mindless junk (except one show I watch  :-X)

"Song of the South" is still banned...  :P ::)

Recently bought the 2 DVD "Alice In Wonderland: Masterpiece Edition" DVD, which featured a clip of the banned Disney movie in the  "One Hour In Wonderland" special on the second disc.


The clip featured Uncle Reamus singing "Zip A Dee Do Dah" and the Briar Rabbit tricked Briar Bear to go into the snare trap that he got caught in.

The scene was funny, though found nothing racist. Yes, even the cartoon characters were voiced by actual African Americans.

Then again, "Loonatics: Unleashed" is offensive towards the classic Looney Tunes characters they're based on & the people (animators, writers, etc) who worked on them during the early/mid 20th century...

I seem to recall a lot of those cartoons still being aired around local channels as recently as the Late 80s, terrible stereotypes about Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.  And it was really surprising that they made it into the 80s at all, actually even the 70s if you think about it.  Bugs Bunny dressing up as African bushmen and bad, shifty Asian stereotypes from the 1940s.  Not enough people voiced complain about these cartoons until the 80s.  This kind of stuff should not be available on children's viewing channels.  If adults want to watch them, go ahead, but they are from another time.

I seem to recall a lot of those cartoons still being aired around local channels as recently as the Late 80s, terrible stereotypes about Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.  And it was really surprising that they made it into the 80s at all, actually even the 70s if you think about it.  Bugs Bunny dressing up as African bushmen and bad, shifty Asian stereotypes from the 1940s.  Not enough people voiced complain about these cartoons until the 80s.  This kind of stuff should not be available on children's viewing channels.  If adults want to watch them, go ahead, but they are from another time.

I agree.  Children are vulnerable to negative stereotypes simply because of their limited exposure to the world.  However, it's not enough to ban racist programs from children's television.  Parents and teachers must clue kids in on what the world is really like.  Of course, the education has to be age appropriate.  I'm not suggesting we show seven-year-olds holocaust footage!  Some of the "Un-PC" themes from older cartoons were not malevolent, just misinforming.  How many of us thought all Polynesians wore grass skirts and all Eskimos* lived in igloos?  It is true some people of the South Pacific wore grass skirts and some indiginous people of the Arctic lived in igloos. 

The trouble is cartoons were marketed as "entertainment" not education.  Thus, the cartoonists used the most entertaining images rather than the most educational. 

The Right hates PBS because a program such as "Sesame Street" would invite a bona-fide American Indian on the program to tell a folkloric tale or present crafts from his culture.  There would not be an overtly political slant to the program, but that's where it would lead.  All the children would see these American Indians did not wear feathers on their heads and talk like Tonto.  To call into question a stereotype is to call into question the political status quo.  That's what scared the crap out of conservatives.  They would much rather raise kids on a diet of John Wayne movies without the truth about America's treatment of indiginous peoples ever mentioned.

Anyway, here's a great cartoon for the children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYfSopE2JUA&eurl=

The Right hates PBS because a program such as "Sesame Street" would invite a bona-fide American Indian on the program to tell a folkloric tale or present crafts from his culture.  There would not be an overtly political slant to the program, but that's where it would lead.  All the children would see these American Indians did not wear feathers on their heads and talk like Tonto.  To call into question a stereotype is to call into question the political status quo.  That's what scared the crap out of conservatives.  They would much rather raise kids on a diet of John Wayne movies without the truth about America's treatment of indiginous peoples ever mentioned.



They, the Right, also objected to showing Maria and Luis having a child because,EGAD, they were so irresponsible as to have a child while living in an apartment!  There was the flap about teaching Spanish words, and on, and on. 

The Right hates PBS because a program such as "Sesame Street" would invite a bona-fide American Indian on the program to tell a folkloric tale or present crafts from his culture.  There would not be an overtly political slant to the program, but that's where it would lead.  All the children would see these American Indians did not wear feathers on their heads and talk like Tonto.  To call into question a stereotype is to call into question the political status quo.  That's what scared the crap out of conservatives.  They would much rather raise kids on a diet of John Wayne movies without the truth about America's treatment of indiginous peoples ever mentioned.


Tosh.

You talk about stereotypes, you just used a great one yourself Max.

Everyone that's not a bleeding heart liberal is scared of other cultures?
::)

Tosh.

You talk about stereotypes, you just used a great one yourself Max.

Everyone that's not a bleeding heart liberal is scared of other cultures?
::)

No.  I didn't say jacksquat about "bleeding heart liberal" anything. 
Now that you mention it, a lot of liberals are indeed afraid of other cultures, usually their own.

I was talking about PBS.  Make no mistake about it, it has been the Right that has been attacking Public Broadcasting since its inception 40 years ago.  They've pretty much won.  PBS/NPR is right-wing on economic issues and they quake in their boots over charges of "liberal bias."
Here's what conservatives think is great programming:  A bunch of conservatives sitting around in leather armchairs talking about how great it is to be conservative.  PBS has been home to chat shows with John McLaughlin, William F. Buckley, Tucker "The F***r" Carlson, and Paul Gigot, editor of the WSJ editorial page was/is one of Jim Lehrer's favorite guests.

It isn't liberals who declared Ernie and Bert pomoted homosexuality.

Let's face it.  A huge percentage of self-described "conservatives" would like to roll the social contract back to 1947 (and the economic contract back to 1927).  They even get folks like Michelle Malkin and Thomas Sowell to along with them.  You know Thomas Sowell, "Uncle Tom's Column." 


They, the Right, also objected to showing Maria and Luis having a child because,EGAD, they were so irresponsible as to have a child while living in an apartment!  There was the flap about teaching Spanish words, and on, and on. 

For living in an apartment?  That's all?  Nothing more?  Do you remember any details?  That's hilarious (or is it sad?)
A sad fact hidden, but widely known, a lot of rich white people would prefer that only other rich white people have babies.  From Charles Murray to Ann Coulter, that's the ugly truth at the core of their circumlocution!
::)

No.  I didn't say jacksquat about "bleeding heart liberal" anything. 
Now that you mention it, a lot of liberals are indeed afraid of other cultures, usually their own.

I was talking about PBS.  Make no mistake about it, it has been the Right that has been attacking Public Broadcasting since its inception 40 years ago.  They've pretty much won.  PBS/NPR is right-wing on economic issues and they quake in their boots over charges of "liberal bias."
Here's what conservatives think is great programming:  A bunch of conservatives sitting around in leather armchairs talking about how great it is to be conservative.  PBS has been home to chat shows with John McLaughlin, William F. Buckley, Tucker "The F***r" Carlson, and Paul Gigot, editor of the WSJ editorial page was/is one of Jim Lehrer's favorite guests.

It isn't liberals who declared Ernie and Bert pomoted homosexuality.

Let's face it.  A huge percentage of self-described "conservatives" would like to roll the social contract back to 1947 (and the economic contract back to 1927).  They even get folks like Michelle Malkin and Thomas Sowell to along with them.  You know Thomas Sowell, "Uncle Tom's Column." 
For living in an apartment?  That's all?  Nothing more?  Do you remember any details?  That's hilarious (or is it sad?)
A sad fact hidden, but widely known, a lot of rich white people would prefer that only other rich white people have babies.  From Charles Murray to Ann Coulter, that's the ugly truth at the core of their circumlocution!
::)


Not one of those people you described is a Conservative.  ;D But I think the " - " marks insinuate that.

are these 'tunes presented in an exploitative manner, i.e. "those were the good ol' days when you could get away with doing this!" ? if so then it's wrong.

otherwise it would be appropriate to display them as part of a "Racism in America" exhibit


But is it really "racist"?

Remember, a lot of things that we look at and cringe, were actually seen as quite "Liberal" and "progressive" when they first happened.

As a good example, look at "Amos & Andy", or their cartoon counterparts, "Heckyle & Jeckyle".  We look at them through 21st Century eyes, and see "How dare they use a black stereotype like that".  Yet, if you go back 50 years, you had even more pople going "How dare they use such obvious black people, who are getting over on white people?"

One of my favorite examples of this is the much-maligned "Song Of The South".  A lot of people do not realize that the movie was actually banned in many areas of "The South", because of things they found objectionable (a black man talking back to a white woman, a black man being the hero of the story, a little white boy hugging a black man).

Propaganda and wartime films are an entirely different matter.  And you have to remember, everybody was doing it.  I saw an exhibition about 15 years ago at the UCLA film school, where they showed several WWII cartoons, including those from Germany, Italy, and Japan.  While ours may be considered "vulgar" today, they are nothing compared to what they were showing in Germany at the time.

I do not endorse showing those types of cartoons to children.  However, I do endorse them being saved, and shown to mature audiences who can differentiate the differences between the time they were made and today.

And if anybody caught the MSNBC special a month or so back on cartoons shown to children in the Arab world, you might want to try and catch it if they show it again.  I remember one they showed from Syria (where it airs every Saturday morning), that had images that seemed to be right out of Nazi Germany.  Hook nosed Jews who plot to kill all Arabs.  Drunk Frenchmen (wearing berets) and fat British plotting with the Jews to regain their "Colonial Empires".  Stupid Americans who simply want to kill everything in front of them because they are non-Christian.

At least thankfully, we seem to have outgrown this kind of portrayal in cartoons.  At least, those outside of the editorial pages.  Even as enlightened as we think we are, a simple browse through the Cagle website will still show images made in the USA of fat Arabs in robes, hook nosed Jews, and racial stereotypes of all sorts.  I guess this kind of thing is OK, as long as it supports certain viewpoints, and is not aimed at children.

Not one of those people you described is a Conservative.  ;D But I think the " - " marks insinuate that.

William F. Buckley is conservative.
Charles Murray is conservative.
John McLaughlin is conservative.
Tucker Carlson is conservative.
Michelle Malkin is conservative.
Thomas Sowell is conservative.
Ann Coulter is conservative.

Perhaps "authoritarian" is a better term, with the exception of Buckley who tries to be old-school libertarian.

I can't help it if Carlson inspires the particular rhyme with his first name.

"Heckle & Jeckle", I think one of them spoke in a British accent and never noticed any racism in a few cartoons I've seen (ie watermelon, gambling)



Though the talking magpies were probably based from the crows from "Dumbo", which are black stereotypes. Funny how the crows from "Dumbo", the Native Americans in "Peter Pan", and the drug referances in "Alice In Wonderland" are intact while Disney banned "Song of the South" and edited a scene in "Fantasia"...  ::)



Stereotypes are still around, but in different forms.

Not to mention other stereotypes like Italians,  Asians, Native Americans,  gays, blondes, fat, skinny, rich, poor, etc shown in other movies, tv shows.

What's wrong with "Song of the South"?  Not much.  It just masks the devilish violence of the ante-bellum/post-reconstruction South in a 100 ways using the most rank stereotypes possible.  All it does is bolster the canard that the Southern Negro was a happy man until the War of Northern Aggression, and undergird some old folktales with a subtext of white supremacy.  Other than that, it's perfectly fine family fare.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/139/139_south.html

_____________________________________________________________
Review ganked from IMdb.com, I find this one particularly trenchant:

Author: maxdragon26 from United States


*** This comment may contain spoilers ***


The film has been criticized both for "making slavery appear pleasant" and "pretending slavery didn't exist", even though the film (like Harris' original collection of stories) is set after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Still, that time period in U.S. wasn't as rose colored and happy go lucky as the movie portends.

As folklorist Patricia A. Turner writes, The days on the plantation located in "the United States of Georgia" begin and end with unsupervised Blacks singing songs about their wonderful home as they march to and from the fields. Disney and company made no attempt to render the music in the style of the spirituals and work songs that would have been sung during this era. They provided no indication regarding the status of the Blacks on the plantation. Joel Chandler Harris set his stories in the post-slavery era, but Disney's version seems to take place during a surreal time when Blacks lived on slave quarters on a plantation, worked diligently for no visible reward and considered Atlanta a viable place for an old Black man to set out for.

Kind old Uncle Remus caters to the needs of the young white boy whose father has inexplicably left him and his mother at the plantation. An obviously ill-kept Black child of the same age named Toby is assigned to look after the white boy, Johnny. Although Toby makes one reference to his "ma," his parents are nowhere to be seen. The African-American adults in the film pay attention to him only when he neglects his responsibilities as Johnny's playmate-keeper. He is up before Johnny in the morning in order to bring his white charge water to wash with and keep him entertained.

The boys befriend a little blond girl, Ginny, whose family clearly represents the neighborhood's white trash. Although Johnny coaxes his mother into inviting Ginny to his fancy birthday party at the big house, Toby is curiously absent from the party scenes. Toby is good enough to catch frogs with, but not good enough to have birthday cake with. When Toby and Johnny are with Uncle Remus, the gray-haired Black man directs most of his attention to the white child. Thus Blacks on the plantation are seen as willingly subservient to the whites to the extent that they overlook the needs of their own children. When Johnny's mother threatens to keep her son away from the old gentleman's cabin, Uncle Remus is so hurt that he starts to run away. In the world that Disney made, the Blacks sublimate their own lives in order to be better servants to the white family.

That is why people who have a problem with the movie have a problem with it. It reinforces the subtle and not so subtle messages about Blacks that have plagued this nation since slavery was introduced. Ask yourself this, would the film still be a memorable classic (among white people in this country at that) if it starred an ALL black cast? What if Toby was the central child in the story? As a white person myself, I don't think so and I wish other white people would open their minds up and try to see things from the other side. Just because the movie might make us feel good doesn't mean it's not offending others. Blacks were still being lynched during that period yet this movie is heralded as a period piece?

William F. Buckley is conservative.
Charles Murray is conservative.
John McLaughlin is conservative.
Tucker Carlson is conservative.
Michelle Malkin is conservative.
Thomas Sowell is conservative.
Ann Coulter is conservative.

Perhaps "authoritarian" is a better term, with the exception of Buckley who tries to be old-school libertarian.

I can't help it if Carlson inspires the particular rhyme with his first name.


Reactionary would be the term I'd use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiwTfSoEEpY

used to love heckle and jeckle.

white dog remind anyone on this very forum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiwTfSoEEpY

used to love heckle and jeckle.

white dog remind anyone on this very forum?

LOL!  I haven't seen that one since I was a kid!
The white dog is supposed to remind us of....?

But is it really "racist"?


YES. next question?

What's wrong with "Song of the South"?  Not much.  It just masks the devilish violence of the ante-bellum/post-reconstruction South in a 100 ways using the most rank stereotypes possible.  All it does is bolster the canard that the Southern Negro was a happy man until the War of Northern Aggression, and undergird some old folktales with a subtext of white supremacy.  Other than that, it's perfectly fine family fare.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/139/139_south.html


As commented on by somebody with an axe to grind.

Joel Chandler Harris was a reporter and newspaper editor that lived from 1848-1908.  Born and raised in Georgia, he grew up listening to the folk tales of the slaves that lived in nearby plantations (his parents were actually poor "dirt farmers").  In the late 1870's, he realized that the folklore of the slaves was rapidly vanishing.  Because of changes in the African-American culture, the old folk tales were rapidly vanishing, so he made it a point to try and save as many of them as he could.

Much like an American "Brothers Grimm", he went around the countryside, collecting as many of them as he could.  Most of the stories had a foundation in African Tribal lore and religion, and in tribal Totem dieties.  He simply collected them all together (along with the regional dialects, which were also vanishing) and condensed them into a single narrative.

And the stories were actually quite subversive.  Brer Rabbit (Brother Rabbit) was portrayed as a stand-in for the slaves themselves.  Brer Fox was the stand-in for the slave owners.  Brer Bear was the stand-in for the overseers (and the poor "white trash" that made up most of the people of "The South").

In general, the stories would revolve around Brer Fox trying to get Brer Rabbit.  He was smart (or so he thought), and would talk Brer Bear (who was stupid but strong) to do his "dirty work" for him.  Now Brer Rabbit was weak, but he was smart.  In the end of all the stories, Brer Rabbit would end up the winner, leaving Brer Fox and Bear to lick their wounds, and wonder how he got away yet again.

In the Disney Version, there were changes made to try and appease the African-American commmunity.  The timeline was changed from pre ro post antebellum Georgia.  And remember, this is Disney we are talking about.  "Disneyfication" is a common term in the Entertainment industry, because they fight to homogonize the bad things out of life, and concentrate on the good things.

Post Civil War Georgia was no picknick for the former slaves, but they tried to make it "safe" for kids to view.  After all, do any of you complain because "Mary Poppins" does not portray how things were really like for the "East Enders" in London?  Does anybody really think that life for Burt was the "spoon full of sugar" that the movie makes it seem to be?  Do you think that Don Diego de la Vega did not exploit the under classes, simply because he sometimes put on a mask as Zorro?  And it is funny that none of the exploits of Davey Crockeytt fighting Indians never made it into the Disney movies about the fronteersman.  It is amazing how the exploitation in the original novel The Three Musketeers never makes it into any of the Disney versions.

Disney specializes in entertainment for children.  Most 5-10 year olds do not need to see how horrible slavery was in a Disney movie.  They already know that.

As commented on by somebody with an axe to grind.

Joel Chandler Harris was a reporter and newspaper editor that lived from 1848-1908.  Born and raised in Georgia, he grew up listening to the folk tales of the slaves that lived in nearby plantations (his parents were actually poor "dirt farmers").  In the late 1870's, he realized that the folklore of the slaves was rapidly vanishing.  Because of changes in the African-American culture, the old folk tales were rapidly vanishing, so he made it a point to try and save as many of them as he could.

Much like an American "Brothers Grimm", he went around the countryside, collecting as many of them as he could.  Most of the stories had a foundation in African Tribal lore and religion, and in tribal Totem dieties.  He simply collected them all together (along with the regional dialects, which were also vanishing) and condensed them into a single narrative.

And the stories were actually quite subversive.  Brer Rabbit (Brother Rabbit) was portrayed as a stand-in for the slaves themselves.  Brer Fox was the stand-in for the slave owners.  Brer Bear was the stand-in for the overseers (and the poor "white trash" that made up most of the people of "The South").

In general, the stories would revolve around Brer Fox trying to get Brer Rabbit.  He was smart (or so he thought), and would talk Brer Bear (who was stupid but strong) to do his "dirty work" for him.  Now Brer Rabbit was weak, but he was smart.  In the end of all the stories, Brer Rabbit would end up the winner, leaving Brer Fox and Bear to lick their wounds, and wonder how he got away yet again.

In the Disney Version, there were changes made to try and appease the African-American commmunity.  The timeline was changed from pre ro post antebellum Georgia.  And remember, this is Disney we are talking about.  "Disneyfication" is a common term in the Entertainment industry, because they fight to homogonize the bad things out of life, and concentrate on the good things.

Post Civil War Georgia was no picknick for the former slaves, but they tried to make it "safe" for kids to view.  After all, do any of you complain because "Mary Poppins" does not portray how things were really like for the "East Enders" in London?  Does anybody really think that life for Burt was the "spoon full of sugar" that the movie makes it seem to be?  Do you think that Don Diego de la Vega did not exploit the under classes, simply because he sometimes put on a mask as Zorro?  And it is funny that none of the exploits of Davey Crockeytt fighting Indians never made it into the Disney movies about the fronteersman.  It is amazing how the exploitation in the original novel The Three Musketeers never makes it into any of the Disney versions.

Disney specializes in entertainment for children.  Most 5-10 year olds do not need to see how horrible slavery was in a Disney movie.  They already know that.


It is not the folklore it is the context.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an axe to grind with "Song of the South."  Children barely know what slavery is.  Their first exposure to it should not be Uncle Remus for chrissakes.  Children need to know that slavery was wrong and that African-Americans suffered under it for 400 years, and furthermore African-Americans were and continue to be mistreated after abolition.  I would not tell young children about the systematic torture, rape, and abuse in slavery/Jim Crow.  That can wait until they are older.  It is most certainly poisonous to impressionable minds to portray enslaved African-American adults as big children.  I would, if I had children, read them the Br'er Rabbit folktales, but I would not have them watch "Song of the South."

In other threads I have gone on ad nauseam about classism in popular entertainment.  "Mary Poppins" is a good example, but she does not represent a coverup of American atrocities. 

The two issues in American history it is vital that we should never draw a smiley face over are:
1. Slavery.
2. Treatment of American Indians.
Yes, spare children details they are not emotionally prepared to handle, but do not pretend Blacks were ever happy being slaves or that the U.S. govenrment was ever fair to Native Americans.  I'm not talking politically correct, I'm talking historically correct.
Soldiering and piracy of yore were nothing like cinema portrays them, but giving American children the wrong impression about those is not nearly so dangerous.

This isn't a cartoon but has anyone heard of the show Amos and Andy?  That was as "Jim Crow" as you can get. 

This isn't a cartoon but has anyone heard of the show Amos and Andy?  That was as "Jim Crow" as you can get. 



I've heard it.  When I was growing up, WMAQ radio in Chicago would air old-time radio shows like Amos & Andy, Gangbusters and a couple of others whose names escape me.  I didn't know at the time that the two actors were white until I was reading one of my dad's Time-Life "Our Century" books and I saw a picture of them in front of the microphones.  Looking back, it was basically a minstrel show on the radio.

This isn't a cartoon but has anyone heard of the show Amos and Andy?  That was as "Jim Crow" as you can get. 

"Amos and Andy" was pretty vile, but it wasn't marketed as children's programming. 

Don't know about Disney since thhey're aimed towards the family, but Looney Tunes weren't originally intended for kids. Though was aimed towards children since the 1950's when they aired on television...

I've heard some parts of "Amos & Andy" and sounded really unitelligble and if they ate too much cheese (no offense to people who are/were constipated).

Considered racist now, which Halle Berry sued a radio personality who did an impersonation of an black person last year. 

Though funny how white comedian Chelsea Handler would get away from racial humor since Michael Richards ended up being in hot water... though she never said the "N" word and "Chelsea Handler Show" probably have writers in different races... Some ways, still don't get it  :P


The tv show featured actual African American actors, but was still very stereotypical and would considered very "Un PC" today.  Can't comment since I've  never seen it.

"Amos and Andy" was pretty vile, but it wasn't marketed as children's programming. 


My Dad who is 72 remembers hearing an Amos and Andy show on the radio.  He must have been pretty young.

My Dad who is 72 remembers hearing an Amos and Andy show on the radio.  He must have been pretty young.

According to Wiki, the Amos 'n' Andy radio show (counting the "Amos 'n' Andy Music Hall" was broadcast until 1960 on radio.  If your dad's old enough to remember the late 1940s, he caught Amos 'n' Andy at their, erm, finest.
:-\\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_'n'_Andy

According to Wiki, the Amos 'n' Andy radio show (counting the "Amos 'n' Andy Music Hall" was broadcast until 1960 on radio.  If your dad's old enough to remember the late 1940s, he caught Amos 'n' Andy at their, erm, finest.
:-\\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_'n'_Andy


Who was it who did a similar thing back in the 1940's?  Two white guys who did a radio as blacks?  I'd better check on that one.

I didn't know at the time that the two actors were white until I was reading one of my dad's Time-Life "Our Century" books and I saw a picture of them in front of the microphones.  Looking back, it was basically a minstrel show on the radio.


Actually, that is true, and not true.

The original performers were 2 white Jewish men.  But by 1943, most of the cast had changed, and the majority of the actors were blacks.  And in the movies (which started in 1930) and TV shows (1951-1953), the entire cast was black (with the exception of Amos and Andy themselves in the 1930's movies, which was played by the same actors that did the radio show - because their voices were to well known at the time to be easily replaced.  It would be like replacing Humphry Bogart with somebody else in a "Sam Spade" role).

And the show was so popular, that it lead to a large number of whites watching "black shows" for the first time.  Movies were largely segregated at the time, with a "White Hollywood" and a "Black Hollywood" making different movies, each for their own segregated audiences.  Because of the popularity of A&A, a lot of "White" theaters started to show A&A, and other similarly inspired movies that a few years ago would never have been seen by the general public.

And a lot of Black artists first got their national exposure through these movies.  Duke Ellington was first seen by most people in A&A movies.  And these movies were hugely popular.  The first A&A movie was the second most popular movie that RKO ever made, next to King Kong.  It would probably be another 25 years until a "Black Commedy" would have such an impact on mainstream America.

***

I myself am a huge fan of the cinema.  Most people do not know that over 80% of movies made before 1940 simply do not exist anymore.  The films were either thrown away, or dissintegrated with the passage of time.  And when it comes to "Black Hollywood", the loss is closer to 98%.  A&A is actually one of the largest collections of old Hollywood (as well as early TV) that is still in existance which portrays blacks in a "positive" manner (businessmen, civic leaders, family men - as opposed to lazy bums, criminals, and drunks/alcoholics).  In reality, the "stereotyping" was really not that different from most shows of the era.  Listen to almost any show that depicted minorities, or a small segment of society and you will see the same thing.  Jack Benny, Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Have Gun Will Travel, and every other "Old Time Radio" show had them.  They were stereotypes, but the overall impression of the characters was still positive.  The good guys came out in the end.  And if things went wrong, they learned from their mistakes (or suffered for them again in a later show).

Amos was half-owner of his own business.  He was kind, generous, and a dedicated husband and father.  He would do anything for his family and friends.  Andy was more of a "slacker", who was a sucker for "get rich quick" schemes.  He would constantly get his friends to go in with him in one scene after another, only to have it explode in his face.  By the end of the show, Andy normally watched everything collapse around him, and responsible Amos would be left trying to console his friend, and pick up the pieces.  And they would work to make sure that nobody suffered a loss, other then themselves.  Most of the storylines are actually classic stories about the perils of greed, followed by personal responsibility.

And ther TV show was about the only place you would see "serious" black actors until I-Spy came along a quarter of a centruy later.  I doubt that there was a show with such a large black cast until the 1970's, when Good Times, What's Happening, and The Jeffersons made it to primetime.

Today, it may look "exploitative", but in it's time it was actually quite remarkable for it's portrayal of blacks in this country.  And it gave wide and popular exposure to black actors, who never would have had such exposure without the show.

Indeed, sentimental people mourn the deterioration of cinema in the past 30 years.  They forget that the movies that survive from the silent era to the 1950s are the cream of the crop for the most part.  To be sure some gems were lost, but a large percentage of that disappeared 80% were godawful cliffhanger serials and b-movies for the matinee.  You notice how most of what's on your 100 satellite channels is crap.  Well, before TV (let alone cable/satellite TV), a lot more people went to a lot more movies in a lot more cinemas.  If that 80% re-appeared, film buffs would find themselves waist deep in celluloid crap panning for such a little gold!

________________________________

No matter what degree of success the Amos &  Andy characters attained, they were still racially stereotyped caricatures.

Today, it may look "exploitative", ...


"well, by Today's standards, the "Kristalnacht" may look brutal and oppressive, but for but for 1930's Germany it was quite humanitarian, after all no Jews were actually gassed, they just had their windows broken"

No matter what degree of success the Amos &  Andy characters attained, they were still racially stereotyped caricatures.


And why don't we throw in a few more.  Like Rochester.  Or Ricky Ricardo.  How about all the indians on Daniel Boone?  And has anybody ever seen the classic Tony Curtis move "The Great Race"?

We can go on and on about stereotypes.  And almost any movie, TV show, and radio show made before 1970 was full of them.  French, German, Mexican, Arab, Black, Indian, the list goes on and on.

And they live on today.  Can anybody tell me that Apu is not a horrible stereotype?  Look at the majority of actors in such recent movies as "Comming To America", and tell me it is not full of stereotypes (most of them rather negative).

What I look at, is compared to the era, was the character a positive or negative role model?


"well, by Today's standards, the "Kristalnacht" may look brutal and oppressive, but for but for 1930's Germany it was quite humanitarian, after all no Jews were actually gassed, they just had their windows broken"


We are talking about something totally different.  The "Night Of Broken Glass" was simply the first active attack on the Jewish citizens of Germany.  But the dehumanizing had already been in progress for years (if not decades) before that, and only got worse.

By comparison, stereotyping in the US became less and less as time went on.  It is still there today.  And in many cases, it will not go away simply because it is often true.  Or because segments of the community stereotyped propegate it themselves.

***

BTW, today is the 79th Anniversary of the first radio broadcast of the Amos & Andy show.  Talk about a coincidence.

Keep wrestling with the rod and the line, Mush!  Maybe one of these days you'll reel me in; you'll convince me that "Song of the South" and "Amos 'n' Andy" are standard bearers for esteemed images of African-Americans in the media.  Hasn't happened yet, but keep trying.  I admire your tenacity!
:P

Speaking of stereotypical cartoon characters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4qFxTTi8q0

"My roar hinges are a little rusty..."  ;D ;D ;D

Yazza yazza yazz!
Lawdy lawdy lawdy!

We sho' beat W.E.B. DuBois and Thurgood Marshall in da role model de-pa'meyent!
:D

"Inki & The Minah Bird", not offensive at all. Though Inki, the name of the hunter, and the oversized lips are deemed  offensive today, but he isn't as bad compared to the "cannibal" characters from "Jungle Jitters" and doesn't act like a Stephin Fetchet character.  For some reason, I find the emotionless mynah bird interesting.

"Scrub Me Mama With A Boogie Beat"...

Despite the overly racist stereotypes (though the female singer doesn't have big lips), the song is catchy.

But the cartoon is less than average.  :P


"Jungle Jitters" is a bit mediocre, though that and "All This & Rabbit Stew" (actually not that bad) are the only two from the "Censored 11" I've seen.




Ironically, the the very few  cartoons I can't sit through is a Donald Duck cartoon when his nephews bought cigars for Donald's birthday and he forces them to smoke.

Also "Education For Death", which is rather disturbing. Though the first few minutes was kinda funny, but seen better.

"Scrub Me Mama With A Boogie Beat"...

Despite the overly racist stereotypes (though the female singer doesn't have big lips), the song is catchy.


I actually have that cartoon.

One of my DVDs is called "Banned & Censored Cartoons", and includes 13 shorts that were banned under the old Hayes Code.  Among them were 2 different with Betty Boop shorts, 2 "Private Snafu" shorts, and 2 different "Promotional Shorts" (one of them animated by Tex Avery), and many others.

And it is interesting, since these mostly date from the 1930-1950 era.  They were banned for reasons dealing with sex, drinking, and drug use.  But a lot of them were also filled with racial stereotypes, but that was not commented on.  One of the ones that struck me most was a potatoe that was used as an Irish cop that had a drinking problem.

The "Scrub Me Down" clip really does have some fantastic period Jazz music in it.  I admit that while I find the stereotypes very disturbing, I pull it out once a year or so just to hear that song.  And the short was banned because although the female lead character does not have "big lips" as woops said, she was drawn with a body that is just as lovely as Jessica Rabbit.

Oh, and the song and singers?  That was The Andrews Singers.  The song was a pop hit after the cartoon was released.  And it was animated by Walter Lantz (of Woody Woodpecker fame).

Here is a link to it, if anybody wants to see what these kinds of cartoons were like.  And I dare anybody that appreciates swing and jazz music to tell me that the tune is not catchy as hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r06ft8xMqRM

...
By comparison, stereotyping in the US became less and less as time went on.  It is still there today.  And in many cases, it will not go away simply because it is often true.


Jeff Foxworthy says:

http://www.jefffoxworthy.com/sliced/bio1_2.gif

Mush, you just might be a racist!