This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Banned Racist Cartoons from 1940's

Poll

Should these have been banned?

All the below are now banned in UK by liberals!

Do you find these really nasty and racist or just a cartoon?

I shall let you watch and judge for yourself.

Let me see who votes before he/she has even viewed them.....

http://www.youtube.com/w/All-This-%26-Rabbit-Stew-banned-1941-cartoon?v=3CIvNui1lLI

http://www.youtube.com/w/Banned-Cartoons---Jungle-Jitters?v=vR49UxJ5XT8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWmO9rOYew8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXhlvfp6l44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQC-aXxU0OQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2lCL5AfTzM

Reply 1

KizD

12

"That was the 40's, before racism was even bad."

Reply 2

blissy

15

They are certainly questionable and indicative of an attitude that seems to inherently look down upon black people - one that I'm glad has, on the whole, passed. (The shoe shine in Lazytown shines the person's foot rather than their shoes, the very way the cartoons are drawn which exaggerate and mock facial features [and in a way that isn't ho-ho but it's only a cartoon IMO])

I don't know the criteria for banning things in the UK or who this group of "liberals" are so can't comment from that point of view really. But it certainly made uncomfortable viewing for me and I didn't find them enjoyable or amusing.

Reply 3

bikerx23

1

You can claim this to be comparable to Pompeii where to save offending people sensibilities, they removed all the phallic symbolism (well...giant rock cocks which directed the inhabitants to the brothels), which it ridiculous!

The whole point about history is understanding why things were wrong, hence banning them is a ridiculous notion

Reply 4

Higgy

2

Well at the time i think many black people were like they were portrayed in those cartoons.....

Reply 5

aaronc2

I dont think that black people should be offended by these, but they have just as much of a right to be as many Muslims were over those Mohammed cartoons (IMO)

Reply 6

L i b

19

How exactly are they "banned"? This isn't Stalinist Russia, we don't ban cartoons in this country. I am of the opinion you're talking pish as many people do on this forum for shock value. I imagine most were pulled by the author/production company and hid away somewhere.

Perhaps there is an inherent racism behind it - but was Elmer Fudd in some way racist because he was a stupid white man? I believe being white and having a certain accent was intended to add to the humour with him. I suppose that's just one example, but to a degree it is all innocent: there's nothing there that's worse than the way they portray other stereotypes at the time.

Reply 7

bikerx23

1

Sod Elma Fudd - I want to know when they're going to revoke mickey mouse - that guy is a so offensive...

I think a cartoon can be more risque with its content than many mediums without causing offence - if you look at the daily cartoons of politicians in broadsheets nowadays many of them are extremely savage, and although this could not be allocated as a racist representation, the majority of mainstream cartoonists do not appear to show any signs of this to the best of my knowledge.
Also, accentuation of characteristic features of a race is not a racist act, since that is the nature of the medium, and allows the depiction to be more recognisable.

Reply 8

cheesecakebobby

9

It wasn't considered racism in those days because for a start it was widely accepted that black people were ignorant compared to whites, and even those who were least discriminatory believed so. Read To Kill a Mocking Bird - Atticus, the supposed hero of the story talks about how it was wrong to take advantage of a black's ignorance. So these cartoons weren't seen to be as offensive as they are today, they probably thought - hey, as long as we draw them with big smiles on their faces and doing funny things it doesn't matter that they look like idiots and each one is a certified stereotype.

Reply 9

dave777

OP

LibertineNorth

How exactly are they "banned"? This isn't Stalinist Russia, we don't ban cartoons in this country. I am of the opinion you're talking pish as many people do on this forum for shock value. I imagine most were pulled by the author/production company and hid away somewhere.

They are banned :eek:

They have been removed from TV companies cartoon collections and will not be shown again (except by me)

Just the same as the blokes dog from the dam busters (called nig***) film has been edited 14 times (when he says name of his dog) to avoid offense :wink:

Reply 10

cheesecakebobby

9

Did they accidentally leave it in 13 times?

Reply 11

bikerx23

1

I heard about that, yea...it seems ridiculous to edit the truth, considering the name is linked to the dogs colouration, i.e., it being jet black, rather than it being a derogatory term...

I suppose they are going to edit out the bit where the dog dies since it was the token black for the film and therefore the film is actually about ethnic cleansing?

Reply 12

Chewwy

17

i remember watching these. the 'racism' is so... pathetic, it's funny. i doubt anybody could be offended nowadays by them, at least in britain, since black people aren't 'like that'. 40s america, in the south, probably.

Reply 13

oink

There is a 1954 rupert the bear book called "Rupert and the Castaway" where Rupert finds a "darkie" named "koko" who he found on a holiday beach, apprantly koko had somehow got there from "coon islands" http://www.searchlight.org.uk/rupert/index.html

Reply 14

dave777

OP

oink

There is a 1954 rupert the bear book called "Rupert and the Castaway" where Rupert finds a "darkie" named "koko" who he found on a holiday beach, apprantly koko had somehow got there from "coon islands" http://www.searchlight.org.uk/rupert/index.html

Why is searchlight hosting it :rolleyes:

Reply 15

bluedreamer

1

Yes they should be banned - duh :rolleyes:

I don’t mean to be rude, but anyone who is not black or mixed has no right to say these should not be banned. It has nothing to do with you :rolleyes:

of course you wont find it offensive :p:

Reply 16

bikerx23

1

Since when were people not allowed to have an opinion?

Reply 17

milady

9

dave777

Just the same as the blokes dog from the dam busters (called nig***) film has been edited 14 times (when he says name of his dog) to avoid offense :wink:

didn't know there was a film.
what's it like? how old?

Reply 18

bluedreamer

1

bikerx23

Since when were people not allowed to have an opinion?

I don’t disagree. But you do realise it’s easy for someone who’s not affected by something like this to say - it shouldn’t be banned i.e. I don’t find it offensive.

Well of course you don’t!

Reply 19

bikerx23

1

I dont think people have said they shouldn't be banned for that reason, since that would be a ridiculously popular science answer...
Most people have been summating that they are useful as a tool of progress - the fact that they are examples of past attitudes.etc., however unsavoury they may be, is why they are important historical documents.

Your claim is like saying we must not talk of the holocaust because it was racially motivated, which is a ridiculous claim - the reason these cartoons should not be banned has nothing to do with their content.

Banned Racist Cartoons from 1940's

Should these have been banned?

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated