Tom and Jerry cartoons carry racism warning.

[cthulhuspawn82]

The definition of offensive is that it offends. When these old shows were made, nobody was offend by them. Not even the people they are presumably "bigoted" toward. So the problem isn't that people used to make offensive cartoons; the cartoons, when they were made, weren't offensive at all. They only become offensive when viewed through a modern lens. So the problem is that we are watching media from an alien culture (the past) and trying to filter it through our own beliefs and perceptions.

 

[Ratty]

Seems fairly stupid and pointless to be honest. Pretty much every cartoon from that time had some sort of content that could be considered racist or politically incorrect by today's standards. People that don't know this by know are fairly oblivious to basic history and have no one to blame but themselves. It kind of feels like censoring renaissance paintings because of nudity, I always thought it was better to leave such things as is and let people form their own opinions on things that were considered wholly appropriate in older eras of history.

I have a pretty hard time blaming a 6 or 8 year old for being unaware of the nuances of the History of American animation and racism therein. Or working parents who just want to show their kids "classic" cartoons and are unaware of the toxic messages they may contain. In my experience most people don't know much about film from before they were born, and even the best parents don't always (or even usually) have time to go over what they show their kids with a fine-toothed comb first.

 

[Ratty]

The definition of offensive is that it offends. When these old shows were made, nobody was offend by them. Not even the people they are presumably "bigoted" toward. So the problem isn't that people used to make offensive cartoons; the cartoons, when they were made, weren't offensive at all. They only become offensive when viewed through a modern lens. So the problem is that we are watching media from an alien culture (the past) and trying to filter it through our own beliefs and perceptions.

So you went back in time and asked every black person in America in 1943 if they were offended by Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs? No? Then how can you claim that popular racism in media didn't bother people in the past? I can assure you it did.

In 1932 the Chinese consulate lodged a formal complaint against the then-new Boris Karloff film "The Mask of Fu Manchu". Which featured a white British actor playing a Chinese supervillain with lines like "Kill the white man and take his women!" I doubt many Chinese Americans were thrilled about this either. But Fu Manchu was one of the most popular characters in the world at the time, complete with an endless slew of imitators in print and on the screen, and the character's influence on the modern supervillain can be felt to this day.[footnote]James Bond creator Ian Fleming noted the author of Fu Manchu as an early influence for example.[/footnote] Just because it was popular and influential doesn't mean no one was offended.

 

[TheGreatKlaid]

I echo the things people have said so far. I like the fact that the cartoons remain intact but still recognice that it's a product of a different era. I never liked how entire scenes where cut out of shows because of one little thing, but I also don't like it when people come across as "it's ok that it's racist because it's my childhood!"

Yes, Pippi's dad have always been a bit troublesome from a modern perspective. I doubt Astrid Lindgren had any particular race envelopes to push when she wrote that, it was just in the culture at the time; any white person would become leader by default if they made contact with tribals. But then again, Pippi's dad has always been a rather odd figure, with his connections to pirates and leaving his daughter to fend for herself and whatnot.

One thing about changing "niggerking" to "southsea king" that I like: Astrid Lindgren herself regretted calling him that, stating that it was "idiotic" of her in later years. If she was still alive I think she would've approved of the change. According to people who knew her she was a very open-minded, loving person who never judged other based on what they where.

It's been a long time since I read Pippi Longstocking. I'd forgotten about that. But, really that's not a terrible change. The fellow in Huckleberry Finn was different (which for the record I'd almost typed out and thought gee, I'd get banned so hard) because it was a slice of life story. It's like taking it out of To Kill a Mockingbird. It's in there for a reason.

This however is the problem. It creates a feeling that we cannot change things to keep things accurate. And that's a really funny looking line. I mean, I've no problem with them changing the Pippi Longstocking thing, but then why not change Tom & Jerry cartoons, it adds nothing to the actual cartoon. Personally, I'm all for keeping things for posterity. To change things our predecessors did because it'll look poorly on us, is reprehensible to me. But I'm not right. Not really wrong, but I'll be damned if there is a right answer. People condemning, and pointing out the context is probably the closest thing really.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

At the end of the day I think the disclaimer or warning is the preferable way to go.
It keeps the original material in tact, and doesn't ignore it's own history.

Which is always preferable to the standard "pretend it didn't happen" comfortable lie that far too many people seem to fall back on.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I think it's kind of funny that the race issue is getting the disclaimer when the older Tom and Jerry cartoons are pretty violent. They're not full-out Itchy & Scratchy but some of the slap-stick has a whole lot of impact behind it. I understand why the disclaimer is there of course and think that's the right way to go about things rather than trying to edit down the original cartons.

 

[JimB]

I am leery of the warning, not because it's censorship (it isn't) or because it's moral panic (it probably isn't, and I certainly have no evidence that it is) or anything like that, but because it just seems a bit weaselly to me. "The contents of this thing we sold you are wrong, but we still want to profit from selling it to you, so we're going to tell you it's wrong and that will make it okay to sell it to you despite it being wrong."

I dunno, maybe I'm just being cynical.

[snip]

I always enjoy reading your posts.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

To this day, I have grown people, adults who are supposedly able to discern reality from fiction ask me if everything they've seen in movies are true for black people.

Do you all rap? Do you all hate white people? Where you ever in jail? Do you own a gun? Do you really like Fried Chicken? Do you really like white women?

I'm not taking about tweens or whatever stupid thing that demographic is called nowadays. I'm not talking about kids or teenagers. I'm talking about people who went to college and got degrees.

Their answer is always the same "I never met a black person before/Had chance to talk to one, so all I know is what I've seen".

If adults have these stupid misconceptions due to the fiction they watch, it's important to teach children now more than ever that just because something is portrayed commonly in fiction does not make it real.

How could that ever be a bad thing?

 

[marioandsonic]

I'm fine with them posting this warning, as long as they don't actually try to censor anything in the cartoon itself.

That said...Warner Bros., can you release the full catalog of shorts directed by Tex Avery? (And if anyone in here knows who that is, pat yourself on the back.)

 

[K-lusive]

Were I in Amazon's place, I'd stick a warning on there too. In fact I'd stick a warning on just about anything to prevent as many claims as possible in the U.S. of I'll sue you. Forget the warning and someone, somewhere will kick up a fuss and the internet echo chamber will escalate it into something like international outrage and bankruptcy for Amazon. 'least now they have deniability of sorts..

 

[JimB]

Do you all rap? Do you all hate white people? Where you ever in jail? Do you own a gun? Do you really like Fried Chicken? Do you really like white women? [snip] Their answer is always the same: "I never met a black person before/Had chance to talk to one, so all I know is what I've seen."

I live in a particularly white part of the world myself (my elementary school had only one black student during my entire career there, and my high school only had one black student for two months), and even so, the person you described is very weird to me. What the fuck TV and movies are they watching?

 

[Dragonlayer]

On the one hand, I don't really see any harm in an disclaimer on the box that shows that the current distributors are aware that certain things might be a bit iffy (if only so people don't go on the internet to scream and cry about it), as long as nothing is being censored or changed to be politically correct. On the other, if you seriously need trigger warnings in order to safely enjoy an old cartoon, you deserve to be traumatized in my humble opinion.

 

[Parasondox]

It's another example of the patronising moral nannying that is forced on society by a tiny bullying clique. It is a left and right issue; the left is forcing it's morality on everyone else, just because you have happen to agree with the bullying doesn't make it any less bullying.

No one is being bullied here. The content is still there to view for anyone to see. All they did was add a disclaimer. You pretty much just stretch this situation into something that it isn't.

 

[Skull Bearer]

Funny, when I used to watch the cartoons I thought the black woman owned the house and Tom. We never saw her white employers so I thought she was a rich homeowner who happened to be black.

Mind you, I was watching them translated.

 

[WindKnight]

It starts with trigger warnings. Here in Germany, people are already changing older childrens books (like e.g. Pippi Longstockings father is not the "Negerkönig" (Negro King) anymore but the "Südseekönig" (South Sea King)). Those people won't stop short of newspeak. These are just the humble beginnings.

And one of the books that people keep trying to have banned from american libraries is Tango Makes Three, a children's book based on the true story of two male zoo penguins being given an egg and raising the resulting chick. Its been on the ALA top 10 banned books nearly ever year since 2005, and has topped it four times.

Goes both ways I'm afraid.

 

[Parasondox]

Private companies have no place spewing out moral pomposity or making value calls on content. Amazon, the company couldn't care less, they are only doing it because they fear censure, bad press or legal repercussions from a tiny minority of self righteous left wing bullies. There is nothing more worrying a the moment than the illiberalism of supposed "liberals". The far right is a busted flush, thankfully, the militant left is terrifying because it dresses up its totalitarian approach to life as altruism.

Do you work at Amazon? Seems to me that you know their motives really well. So your problem with this disclaimer, is that it's a step in the wrong direction which leads to censorship and bullying from those who are "far left" or "liberals" in which we all end up in a totalitarian state? Rather than a company, a company that is free to do what it wishes, pointing out to it's viewers, mainly children and their parents/guardians about certain issues that were once fine decades ago but isn't okay and unacceptable today? You know, applying a bit of education to the matter? Listen, I get that you are scared and worried about the "minority" taking away your freedoms and rights with their views about how change is a good thing and how we should hide the bad but creating fear from a disclaimer is a bit much. In general, "fear" isn't a bad thing but too much of it can really create a dangerous situation. Amazon DIDN'T censor the cartoon and NO ONE bullied Amazon into putting up a warning. This whole "left vs right" thing that many keep doing and applying to EVERYTHING, is getting old now.

 

[JimB]

It is a left and right issue; the left is forcing its morality on everyone else; just because you have happen to agree with the bullying doesn't make it any less bullying.

Res Plus, how do you define words like "forcing" and "bullying?" I don't understand how Amazon is forcing its morality on anyone here. A company is saying, "This racially insensitive shit is wrong." That's all. No one is telling you what you're allowed to believe; they're just disagreeing with you. In what sense is that forcing you? In what sense is that bullying you?

If you seriously need trigger warnings in order to safely enjoy an old cartoon, you deserve to be traumatized, in my humble opinion.

Uh, maybe I missed something in the linked article, but who said anything about triggers or traumatizing viewers? Where is that coming from?

Private companies have no place spewing out moral pomposity or making value calls on content.

Sure they do. Companies are people. That was legally decided a few years ago; by the right, if you were wondering. As a person, Amazon has the right to express its beliefs.