Cartoon Network was not unaware of the risks; the cartoons were to be plucked from chronological order and shown late at night, as if they were refugees from some hardcore cable channel. Each one was to sport a rolling disclaimer across the bottom of the screen: "Cartoon Network does not endorse the use of racial slurs. These vintage cartoons are presented as representative of the time in which they were created and are presented for their historical value." It would be difficult to think of a more appropriate plan, but the point is now moot. Each side has had its defenders and detractors; Jerry Beck, one of our premier animation historians and archivists, believes that the right and responsible decision was made in pulling the cartoons. Others, such as columnist Kay McFadden of the Seattle Times, believes that AOL Time Warner's concern for their coffers triumphed at the expense of Art. Yet, there is a greater issue at stake than whether Warner may lose revenue or whether completists get to enjoy the full complement of Bugs Bunny cartoons. Rather, it is the continuing argument of what to do with past artistic artifacts that include racial content. Is censorship ever justified? Should history be eradicated, even in a judicious cause? Is there ever a way to separate art from its historical context, or is such racism timeless and still lethal today? As one of Animation World Magazine's monthly commentators, I wish to express my view on the "June Bugs" flap, however controversial my take might be: Both AOL Time Warner and the Cartoon Network are wrong. They are also both right. If this seems confusing, it merely reflects the fractious and contorted state of race relations in America today.

Bugs Trivia

Click above for the answer!

The Issues at Face Value
There was nothing inherently wrong with the original decision to air "June Bugs" as planned; showing the Twelve in the wee hours with appropriate disclaimers was not an unsound move, and both history and art could have been served. The courage of Cartoon Network was admirable; for the sake of presenting the career of a cartoon rabbit, the Network was prepared to expose itself to the fiery criticisms and controversies that were sure to follow. Such bravery (even if it only lasted a week) is rare in televised media today. Considering that few forms of broadcast have undergone more scrutiny than kidvid and that Cartoon Network survives on nothing but cartoons, Cartoon Network's original decision was even more courageous -- no cowardly dogs here! However, the Cartoon Network cannot be all things to all fans; although they would like to be "the world leader in animation," Cartoon Network cannot do so on their own terms. The Cartoon Network, it will be recalled, is a commercial channel that has to answer to owners and sponsors while catering to the juvenile end of the demographic scale. Cartoon Network cannot play by the same rules as PBS, which could have done the retrospective with far less trepidation. Cartoon Network could still have shown the Twelve, but not as part of the "June Bugs" gala; mixing controversial toons in with the general merriment was not the appropriate context.

As for AOL Time Warner: If Cartoon Network's parent company was concerned about their profits, this is not as cynical as it sounds. Companies run on capital, not controversy. There exists in this nation a cadre of professionals without portfolio who make at least a partial living as anti-racists. Let me make this clear: These are not the same people who recognize racism as the evil it is and fight it on moral grounds. I am referring to the self-righteous on all sides of the color or ethnic line who relentlessly watchdog, agitate and accuse at the slightest suspicion that any form of communication contains racist code. At best these groups and individuals force upon us a grim and vigilant "celebration of diversity," their finely tuned antennae evaluating the ethnic content of every program produced. At worst they are paranoid and accusatory to the point that their anti-racist rhetoric becomes paradoxically racist in itself. These are the people who lead boycotts, and it does not take much to incite them; many of them are highly educated professionals who ought to know better. During this strained and confusing time when race relations are at a difficult point and the recent census suggests that America may no longer have a clear racial "majority," why should Warner risk offending anybody? Is Warner's position really so different from Walt Disney's during the early 1930s? When angry parents assailed Walt with letters about Mickey's randy or cruel behaviors in the Mouse's early films, Walt commanded his staff that it should happen no more. Mickey's image must not be tainted. He's a good scout. And it's bad for business. Shouldn't Warner feel the same about Bugs Bunny, one of the most adored (and marketable) cartoon properties ever created?