Funny Racist Cartoons of the 1940s
"That was the forty'southward, before racism was even bad."
They are certainly questionable and indicative of an mental attitude that seems to inherently look down upon black people - one that I'k glad has, on the whole, passed. (The shoe shine in Lazytown shines the person's human foot rather than their shoes, the very fashion the cartoons are drawn which exaggerate and mock facial features [and in a way that isn't ho-ho but it'due south just a cartoon IMO])
I don't know the criteria for banning things in the Britain or who this group of "liberals" are so can't comment from that betoken of view actually. But it certainly made uncomfortable viewing for me and I didn't detect them enjoyable or agreeable.
Yous tin merits 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 information technology ridiculous!
The whole point about history is understanding why things were incorrect, hence banning them is a ridiculous notion
Well at the time i think many black people were like they were portrayed in those cartoons.....
I dont think that black people should exist offended by these, but they have just as much of a right to exist as many Muslims were over those Mohammed cartoons (IMO)
How exactly are they "banned"? This isn't Stalinist Russian federation, we don't ban cartoons in this land. I am of the stance you're talking pish as many people practise on this forum for stupor value. I imagine nigh were pulled past the author/production company and hid away somewhere.
Perhaps there is an inherent racism behind it - just was Elmer Fudd in some way racist because he was a stupid white human being? 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, only to a degree it is all innocent: there's nothing in that location that'due south worse than the way they portray other stereotypes at the time.
Sod Elma Fudd - I want to know when they're going to revoke mickey mouse - that guy is a so offensive...
I recollect a cartoon can be more than risque with its content than many mediums without causing offence - if you lot expect at the daily cartoons of politicians in broadsheets nowadays many of them are extremely roughshod, and although this could non be allocated equally a racist representation, the majority of mainstream cartoonists practice not appear to show whatever signs of this to the all-time of my knowledge.
Also, accentuation of characteristic features of a race is not a racist human activity, since that is the nature of the medium, and allows the depiction to be more than recognisable.
It wasn't considered racism in those days because for a start information technology 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 most how information technology was wrong to have reward 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 every bit we draw them with large smiles on their faces and doing funny things it doesn't thing that they await like idiots and each one is a certified stereotype.
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
How exactly are they "banned"? This isn't Stalinist Russia, we don't ban cartoons in this state. I am of the opinion you're talking pish every bit many people do on this forum for shock value. I imagine nigh were pulled by the writer/product company and hid away somewhere.
They are banned 
They have been removed from TV companies cartoon collections and will not be shown once more (except past me)
Just the same as the blokes domestic dog from the dam busters (called nig***) film has been edited xiv times (when he says proper name of his dog) to avoid offense 
Did they accidentally leave it in 13 times?
I heard about that, yea...it seems ridiculous to edit the truth, considering the name is linked to the dogs colouration, i.due east., 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 blackness for the movie and therefore the moving-picture show is really about ethnic cleansing?
i remember watching these. the 'racism' is and then... pathetic, it's funny. i doubt anybody could be offended present by them, at to the lowest degree in britain, since black people aren't 'like that'. 40s america, in the south, probably.
There is a 1954 rupert the carry book chosen "Rupert and the Castaway" where Rupert finds a "darkie" named "koko" who he institute on a vacation beach, apprantly koko had somehow got there from "**** islands" http://www.searchlight.org.uk/rupert/index.html
(Original post by oink)
In that location is a 1954 rupert the bear volume called "Rupert and the Castaway" where Rupert finds a "darkie" named "koko" who he constitute on a holiday beach, apprantly koko had somehow got there from "**** islands" http://www.searchlight.org.u.k./rupert/alphabetize.html
Why is searchlight hosting it 
Aye they should exist banned - duh
I don't mean to be rude, simply anyone who is not blackness or mixed has no right to say these should non be banned. It has nada to do with you of form you wont find it offensive 
Since when were people not allowed to accept an stance?
(Original post past dave777)
Only the aforementioned as the blokes dog from the dam busters (called nig***) film has been edited 14 times (when he says name of his canis familiaris) to avoid crime
didn't know at that place was a movie.
what'due south information technology like? how onetime?
(Original post by bikerx23)
Since when were people not allowed to accept an opinion?
I don't disagree. Just you do realise information technology's easy for someone who'southward not affected by something like this to say - it shouldn't be banned i.eastward. I don't find it offensive.
Well of grade you don't!
I dont think people have said they shouldn't be banned for that reason, since that would be a ridiculously pop science respond...
Most people take been summating that they are useful as a tool of progress - the fact that they are examples of past attitudes.etc., notwithstanding unsavoury they may be, is why they are important historical documents.
Your claim is like maxim 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 goose egg to exercise with their content.
Source: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=198090
0 Response to "Funny Racist Cartoons of the 1940s"
Post a Comment