I'd like to share an experience I had when I made my ecard based on Fagin from Charles Dickens "Oliver Twist". I based Scooters portrayal on the Fagin character used in the musical version. Actually my intention was an anti-"republican" statement.
First thing I knew a Jewish friend of mine in Ohio, was immediately offended. Who would have thunk it? I explained that in trying to maintain a parody usage I followed the original. That seemed to calm her down temporarily. But I had to change the color of the beard to match some obscure reference that Fagin had red hair that she forwarded to me. I don't understand why a red headed Jewish portrayal was less offensive. Never received any comments from the Republicans.
But now I am receiving emails from her painting all Muslims/Arabs as suicide bombers and potential "Jew killers". I haven't even attempted to address this. It's pointless from where I sit. She has strong societal views that I'll never be able to counter.
Thanks for discussing the topic in an intelligent manner. It's great that there are still some people who want to try to develop a deeper understanding of animation history.
The Civil Rights movement was at it's peak between 1955 and 1965.
Yes, it was the Civil Rights Movement that resulted in those cartoons being banned. It's interesting that it took this long in this thread for that to get mentioned. I guess most cartoon fans really do not know much about this topic, and why would they? You really have to dig to learn about all these censored cartoons.
First thing I knew a Jewish friend of mine in Ohio, was immediately offended. Who would have thunk it?
This goes back to the reason I started this thread: to try to understand a disgust that is powerful enough to remove hundreds of cartoons and cartoon scenes from popular culture, but is incomprehensible to many of us.
As a few people in this thread have demonstrated, much to the forum's shame, "if I'm not personally hurt by it, it's trivial and others are being oversensitive," to paraphrase.
It really depresses me that the youth of today only gauge their responses by what they have actually lived through. I valued my friend's Jewish viewpoint because of my knowledge of the holocaust. I wasn't alive then, but I am aware of it.
It's sad that many aren't aware of the Civil Rights movement. I grew up with it and I respect those that fought for equality.
I still don't understand why Fagin having red hair made all things better...Maybe my friend figures the red hair would transfer responsibility to the Irish. Being half Irish I didn't object and never heard from any other Irish descendants that it was objectionable.
My work was never designed to injure any particular race...I may have been trying to influence opinion on a particular political party, but I always thought that was fair game. Support certain viewpoints and I will call you on it, if I feel it's unfair to the rest of the world.
[quote=SpaceGhost2K]The term "honky" refers to a white male, who would drive into a black neighborhood and honk his car horn. When the poor black families heard the sound, they would send their daughters out for the white men, who would have their way with them, and then give them money.
I/quote]
LOL!
According to an episode of Barney Miller, "HonkY" refers to the stereotype of whites' nasally sounding voices. I would assume the writers of the show would have their ducks in a row to wirte something among some African American cast members and audience.
I believe the poorest people anywhere would not send their daughters out to prostitute en masse. That definition sounds racist and ridiciulous and incredulous to me.
The term "honky" refers to a white male, who would drive into a black neighborhood and honk his car horn.
According to an episode of Barney Miller, "HonkY" refers to the stereotype of whites' nasally sounding voices.
"Honky, when used as a pejorative meaning white, was first used in 1967 by black militants within SNCC seeking a rebuttal for the term nigger. They settled on a familiar word they felt was disparaging to certain Americans of European descent; hunkie meaning an American of Slavic or Hungarian descent.
"The word "honky" as a pejorative for caucasians comes from "bohunk" and "hunky". In the early 1900's, these were derogatory terms for Bohemian, Hungarian, and Polish immigrants. According to Robert Hendrickson, author of the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, African-American workers in Chicago meat-packing plants picked up the term from white workers and began applying it indiscriminately to all Caucasians." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honky
1.honky445 up, 33 downa derogatory term for a Caucasian person.
there are three main theories for the origin of the word:
1. the word originated from the practice of white males wishing to hire African-American prostitutes in the 1920's, and going to the appropriate part of town while honking their car horns to attract the whores. Some versions state that the reason for this was that the white men were too afraid to actually stop in those neighborhoods, so the honking would bring the hookers to them. Others say that since few African-Americans could afford cars back in that time, the honking signaled a higher-paying white client and would quickly gain the prostitutes attention.
2. the term comes from the word "honky-tonk", which was used as early as 1875 in reference to wild saloons in the Old West. Patrons of such disreputable establishments were referred to as "honkies", not intended as a racial slur but still a disparaging term.
3. "honkie" is a variation of "hunky" and "bohunk", derogatory terms for Hungarian, Bohemian, and Polish immigrant factory workers and hard laborers in the early 1900's. African-Americans began to use the word in reference to all whites regardless of specific nation of origin.
So what's the difference between taking the word of a guy who had to research it and put it in a book to sell it, or contributions from people who might have first-hand knowledge and contribute it to a free site?
Ae those other animation forums better and more official because you have to pay to post there, but it's free here? Hey, only the real hardcore animation people would PAY to post, so their input must certainly be more... correct.
So what's the difference between taking the word of a guy who had to research it and put it in a book to sell it, or contributions from people who might have first-hand knowledge and contribute it to a free site?
The key word there is "might."
One guy is an etymology scholar. The other is some guy who's reporting an urban legend.
I checked the definition of only one other word on UrbanDictionary to gauge the reliability of that site.
Here are UrbanDictionary's 4 top-rated definitions of "racist":[LIST=1]
[*]Me. I was a racist, I was in the KKK. It has been 2 years since I left and found religion. I had said many hateful things that I had not known what they meant to the person they went to.
[*]If you're a white man, this is what you are.
[*]A term usually used by minorities to get out of any situation.
[*]Someone who drives a race car for a living.[/LIST]Hmm.
I think Jabber nailed it. The reason it was voted the most popular definition is because it's racier (not a pun) and more exciting than the truth; but if you stop and think about it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It sounds like a dumb joke or slur that someone started a while back and people started to believe. Seriously it sounds like someone's attempt to turn the "honky" epithet around and make it more disparaging to blacks than to whites. "They're calling us honkies, are they? I know. Let's make up a rumor that the reason they call us honkies is because they pimp out their daughters. They'll fall for it, or my name isn't KKK Grand Dragon Joe Bob Jethro, Esquire."
Nah, that specific argument is over and Ghost signed off with a funny joke. He must have been inspired by the honky-whore joke that so many have taken literally, and by that silly race car definition of "racist."
[I]He's off and flying as he guns the car around the tracks
He hates Mexicans, Hebrews, Arabs, Eskimos, and Blacks
Go, Speed Racist
Go, Speed Racist
Go, Mel Gibson, Goooooo!
[/I]
I hope you are just trying to be funny Space Ghost. Are you trying to derail the discussion?
Entomolgy(sic) is the study of bugs. Etymology is the study of the origins of words.
Yes, I was trying to be funny. This is an animation site. Generally, there's humor in here, somewhere.
As far as Harvey's argument, I still don't buy it, but I AM about done discussing it. My explanation for the term "honky" didn't come from this site. Actually, I heard it from a former boss who was told the explanation by singer Jeffrey Osborne. It just so happened that it was the first explanation offered at urbandictionary.com. And, it happened to be first, because most readers of that site accepted it as the most likely explanation.
Harvey, maybe you can tell me why a site with predominantly black contributors, would choose a definition that demeaned blacks if it was made up by a white guy who used the opportunity to elevate the white man and demean the black man. If it were posted on a predominantly white site, I might buy that.
It would seem to me that visitors to urbandictionary.com would have been more likely to select a definition that demeaned whites and NOT blacks.
Unless it's right, of course.
Besides, you know the name and background of the man who suggested the "bohunk" theory, but you don't know anything about the man who suggested the "honking John" theory. Read his/her entry. You can tell it came from a more educated source than most of the entries under that word. The person who made the submission might also be a student of etymology. Can you disregard his suggestion simply because you don't know his qualifications but you do know the other guy's?
In fact, he said the source was unknown and could be from any of three origins. Your guy says it's definitely from "bohunk." In my opinion, that makes my guy more believable than yours. It makes your guy look like someone who has to come across as an expert to sell books, where my guy has nothing to gain personally from his explanation.
Harvey, maybe you can tell me why a site with predominantly black contributors, would choose a definition that demeaned blacks if it was made up by a white guy who used the opportunity to elevate the white man and demean the black man. If it were posted on a predominantly white site, I might buy that.
It would seem to me that visitors to urbandictionary.com would have been more likely to select a definition that demeaned whites and NOT blacks.
Unless it's right, of course.
We're still having this argument?
I don't know what to tell you except "go back and re-read those top 3 definitions of racist."
1. Me. I was a racist, I was in the KKK. It has been 2 years since I left and found religion. I had said many hateful things that I had not known what they meant to the person they went to.
I am sorry to African Americans.
I am sorry to Jewish people.
I am sorry to Spansih people.
2. If you're a white man, this is what you are. It doesn't even matter if your wife is black and you have an adopted child from India, or how many black friends you have, somehow you're going to end up being a racist according to how the media portrays the white man as "racist whities".
All of this is funny because the white man is the one that is stereotyped as being racist, which is hypocrisy at its best. It's racist to assume that white men are racists.
If you don't get offended by racial insults, then you're apparently racist too, but an actual racist would get offended by it. When you hear a certain word too much (I'm sure we've all heard "cracka" hundreds of times thanks to standup comedy) then you become desensitized to it.
3. A term usually used by minorities to get out of any situation.
"Sir, I may have to give you a ticket for raping and brutally murdering that nun."
"You fuckin' cracka ass racist! It's just because I'm black ain't it? You say that fuckin' word like you know what you be talkin' bout! You is ignorant!"
Do those sound like definitions approved by "predominantly black contributors," Ghost? Does that sound like a site with accurate definitions, or definitions that most people just pulled out of their asses? Do those sound like definitions that are meant to "demean whites and not blacks." I mean, c'mon, man. Don't make me pick an eyes-rolling smiley.
Finally, you might want to check out the following links, which discuss it:[I]Ya see, the way this word-origin game goes, there are all kinds of stories floating around about why we say the goony things we say, and a lot of them sound good -- maybe too good. And that should be your first clue that something's wrong. ... [The horn-honking definition] has all the earmarks of an explanation that was made up long after the word came into use, maybe as somebody's idea of a joke etymology, then got passed around because it sounded good, and was added to that big pot of reeking trivia called "common knowledge."
[/I]http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma_show.php?id=376There are various false origins based on the form honky, which we have seen isn't the original. One that is commonly touted is that the term comes from white men driving through African-American neighborhoods looking for prostitutes. They would drive slowly, honking their horns to get the attention of the streetwalkers. Another is that the honk comes from the "nasal" qualities of white accents. (Source: Historical Dictionary of American Slang) http://www.wordorigins.org/Words/LetterH/honky.html
There's really no good argument for believing that nonsense, but believe what you want to believe.
Why are we focussed on "honky" when the rest of the world is focussed on what Mel Gibson had to say? And this morning I see that Madonna is back in the forefront.
Personally I don't care what either of them says or does. I care more about a huge portion of the population (Muslims) being painted as terrorists.
I grew up watching Tarzan and cowboy movies. I learned to fear African natives and native Americans. I hope the world doesn't fall into the ideology that anyone different from ourselves is a threat. But I fear that's how we are being marketed.
The Tarzan movies even brought in cannibals and shrunken heads, even though this practice is more prevalent in South American. And Tarzan was supposedly in Africa.
I was young I bought into it. I won't buy into seeing all muslims as suicide bombers. The Palestinians have done this because they have no other alternatives, not the Lebanese or Hezbollah. I will never again see American Indians as heathens that sought scalps and didn't value human life. They valued life, they valued the environment more than we do now. We forced them into reservations located on land that wouldn't support life ordinarily. It was land the white man didn't deem cultivatable.
I will show my displeasure by speaking out against corporate and oil interests. Call me racist!
Yesterday I discovered the ReFrederator video podcast on iTunes. It consists of vintage public domain cartoons released one-a-day. Among the awesome content that's on there (The Dover Boys, black and white Popeye, even an Alice comedy), I found "Inki and the Myna Bird." It's a fantastically surreal cartoon, but it obviously uses a stereotypical depiction of Inki (not to mention his name).
Given that it's a great example of the bizarreness that only animation can convey, should it be banned anyway because of the way Inki is depicted? Other than the native dress and "blackface" character design, he acts more or less like any other animated kid.
Though many (or all) of the films on Havey's list would not be on my list today. Let us remember that was a different time period ( over 60-70 years ago).
We did a screening one time of a collection of animated films from the Smithsonian in D.C. The screening was manily made up of the films on Harvey's list and others that were even worst.
At the end of the evening there was shock, discomfort, and regret.
The regret wasn't for watching the films but for the morays of the time.
Personally, I think we could make even more progress than we have- especially since 1960's when the Civil Rights Act was passed- but thats another discussion.
Though many (or all) of the films on Havey's list would not be on my list today.
Let me just clarify (again?) that I'm not stating that those films and shows are racist. I'm asking whether they're racist.
I don't feel it's always obvious when a caricature or stereotype is racist.
I was hoping that people would explain where they think the line is, but I guess that isn't going to happen. It's a tough topic; rather, an easy one to gloss over, but a difficult one to deconstruct.
At least for me, something is racist when the stereo type portrays people in a negitive light. If it's a positive stereotype, then it's fine. Of course this is very big simplification of a very fuzzy, grey line.
Aloha,
the Ape
—
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
At least for me, something is racist when the stereo type portrays people in a negitive light. If it's a positive stereotype, then it's fine.
That doesn't seem to be the standard in the entertainment industry. It seems to be acceptable to portray negative stereotypes as long as you mix in some positive characters of the same race; e.g., blaxploitation and gangsta flicks, Black sitcoms of the 1970s, cartoons like Boondocks.
This gets back to my question about whether Bosko, Clampett's Coal Black, and others are racist since they are generally positive characters.
If something that only depicts negative stereotypes is racist, does that mean that all gangsta rap is racist?
Does the creator's own racial background come into play when a stereotype is used? Is "The Boondocks" automatically not racist because the creator, Aaron McGruder, is black? Is "Coal Black" automatically racist because Clampett was white? What about the Betty Boop shorts featuring Cab Calloway? Are they racist because they were created by the Fleishers, or not because Calloway participated in his own caricaturization?
If I had any answers I wouldn't have posed the topic in the form of a question.
Maybe if there'd been more intelligent discussion of the content of these cartoons, we'd have some answers by now.
I tend to think that a racist cartoon is whatever the NAACP says it is. Now if only I could drag them into the discussion to explain themselves.
That doesn't seem to be the standard in the entertainment industry. It seems to be acceptable to portray negative stereotypes as long as you mix in some positive characters of the same race; e.g., blaxploitation and gangsta flicks, Black sitcoms of the 1970s, cartoons like Boondocks.
This gets back to my question about whether Bosko, Clampett's Coal Black, and others are racist since they are generally positive characters.
If something that only depicts negative stereotypes is racist, does that mean that all gangsta rap is racist?
This is why I said "...for me..." I can't speak for the whole entertainment industry.
You're going to get any answers to this Harvey, only peoples oppinions.
Aloha,
the Ape
—
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
I was searching for some other topic and bumped into the following article:
AFTER Cartoon Network acquired the rights to all the Bugs Bunny cartoons, it announced, in early May, that it would celebrate by holding a marathon 49-hour broadcast of the entire Bugs oeuvre — the first complete airing ever. Then the network blinked.
Twelve cartoons would not be aired because they contained racially offensive material, the network said.
Animation fans hit the roof. "These are important historical documents, and they're being terribly abused," said Jerry Beck, an animation historian. "Adults should be able to see this work."
...
We're prone to cartoon stereotyping because that's how we think, how we hold images in our heads," said the comic artist Art Spiegelman. "It's preliterate thinking. They scare us because they cut deep, through all our layers of verbiage. It makes them seem charged and dangerous, and they are. But that just means you have to treat them with respect."
...
For media companies, such raw expressiveness is cause for anxiety. The early cartoons were created for adult audiences in movie theaters. But by the 1970's, as the same shorts came under new scrutiny as childen's programming, networks and studios began to cut and snip.
...
The cartoon directors were rarely consulted. "The networks were lousy editors and lousy child psychologists, too," said Chuck Jones, 89, who directed many of the great Warner Brothers cartoons and three of the banned Bugs shorts. "They just went ahead and chewed the things to pieces."
...
"Disney erases memory by making their older cartoons unavailable to newer audiences," [Kevin S. Sandler, editor of "Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation"] said. "They're able to maintain the globalized image of Disney as patriotic, diverse, all-inclusive and respectful of others' identity."
When Disney's 1992 film "Aladdin" drew protests from Arab-American groups for the song lines, "Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face/It's barbaric, but hey, it's home," the company changed the lyric.
...
The [Cartoon Network] considered grouping the 12 offending shorts together and airing them with a disclaimer. But ultimately, the fact that the audience would consist mostly of children under 11 decided matters.
"My great fear," [Mike Lazzo, senior vice president of programming for Cartoon Network] said, "is that a 6-year-old stumbles upon one of these cartoons and doesn't have the wiring to understand the environment these cartoons are made in."
Hey Jabber had no idea Geissel could do other styles. Guess I never bothered to research him.
That's a nice piece of work, even though it isn't politically correct by todays standards. I am impressed he could do work like that. Although I've always appreciated his books. He's entitled to his political views as are we all.
How do people feel about Song of the South and the cartoons within?
These are some of the best Disney shorts I've seen. Should they be available to the public somehow, or should I be ashamed for enjoying them?
The Tarzan movies even brought in cannibals and shrunken heads, even though this practice is more prevalent in South American. And Tarzan was supposedly in Africa.
I was young I bought into it. I won't buy into seeing all muslims as suicide bombers. The Palestinians have done this because they have no other alternatives, not the Lebanese or Hezbollah. I will never again see American Indians as heathens that sought scalps and didn't value human life. They valued life, they valued the environment more than we do now. We forced them into reservations located on land that wouldn't support life ordinarily. It was land the white man didn't deem cultivatable.
I will show my displeasure by speaking out against corporate and oil interests. Call me racist!
a long time ago i used to think the same thing about the American Indians being backward or regressive.
funnily once i read something about a chief being asked by some western settlers about buying their land and he replied with "buying land? why dont you buy the air"
Are these cartoons racist? If so, why? If not, why not?[LIST]
[*] blackface gags in Tom & Jerry and Tex Avery movies?
[*]the depiction of American Indians in Looney Tunes and MGM cartoons?
[*] Mammy Two Shoes of Tom & Jerry?
[*]Stepin Fetchit ("the laziest man in the world") references?
[*] Bosko and Honey?
[*] Felix, Mickey, Animaniacs: minstrel characters?
[*] Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips and other WW2 Japanese characters?
[*] Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves?
[*]Speedy Gonzales?
[*]Pepe Le Pew?
[*]The Italian cooks in Lady & the Tramp?
[*]The crows in Dumbo?
[*] Apache Chief, Black Vulcan, and Samurai of Super Friends?
[*]The Harlem Globetrotters cartoon show, where the Globetrotters were the only black people on the show? The rest of the cast were always white.
[*]affirmative action in cartoons (cartoons like Captain Planet where there must be one white boy, one white girl, one black, one latino, and one asian in the cast)?
[*] Minoriteam of Adult Swim?
[*] am I forgetting any?[/LIST]Or is it the other way around?
Are most cartoons prior to the 1970s - Looney Tunes, MGM, Hanna-Barbera, Popeye, etc. - racist by default for never depicting racial minorities? By that criteria, would a cartoon like Coal Black be less racist than most other cartoons of that era?
Sure, they are racist.
However, you are overlooking some things:
Culture, era, production and story limitations and the simple concept that no matter WHAT story you tell, you cannot tell one that will please all people.
If one takes, say, an episode of Superfriends or Harlem Globetrotters and observes that it appears to be racist because it stereotypes certain kinds of people or seems to exclude other people, then is that a ACCURATE and SOUND observation?
Do things like stereo-typing or exclusion signify a racist agenda on the part of the creators/storytellers, or is it the case of those storytellers merely using TYPES to get their story across in the simplest and strongest ways?
I think its the latter myself.
C'mon now.........we've all seen good and bad stories and we've all seen stories where they've tried to make it mean all things to all people........and failed. Trying to add in all those equalizing elements to round out the tale and make the NAACP happy usually makes for a muddled mess that no-one wants to watch.
I mean do some of these stories NEED to show other races?
Would Lady and the Tramp work if the two cooks were Ethiopian?
I suppose that Star Trek is racist because Captain Kirk is white, that Spawn is racist because Al Simmons is not. Is the Disney Pantheon racist as well, because Mickey, Donald, Goofy appear to represent caucasians even though they are anthropomorphisized animals?
You can analyze some of these things to death and find what you are looking for fairly early on in the process-or you can look for ever and never find a point that rests on soild ground.
Yea, I think some of the above listed cartoons are indeed racist--based on how we view them now. That would be something that could be pretty hard to argue against.
What I think is a LOT harder to argue is that they represent deliberate, hurtful racist slurs or slights at the time they were created.
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I'd like to share an experience I had when I made my ecard based on Fagin from Charles Dickens "Oliver Twist". I based Scooters portrayal on the Fagin character used in the musical version. Actually my intention was an anti-"republican" statement.
First thing I knew a Jewish friend of mine in Ohio, was immediately offended. Who would have thunk it? I explained that in trying to maintain a parody usage I followed the original. That seemed to calm her down temporarily. But I had to change the color of the beard to match some obscure reference that Fagin had red hair that she forwarded to me. I don't understand why a red headed Jewish portrayal was less offensive. Never received any comments from the Republicans.
But now I am receiving emails from her painting all Muslims/Arabs as suicide bombers and potential "Jew killers". I haven't even attempted to address this. It's pointless from where I sit. She has strong societal views that I'll never be able to counter.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Thanks for discussing the topic in an intelligent manner. It's great that there are still some people who want to try to develop a deeper understanding of animation history.
Yes, it was the Civil Rights Movement that resulted in those cartoons being banned. It's interesting that it took this long in this thread for that to get mentioned. I guess most cartoon fans really do not know much about this topic, and why would they? You really have to dig to learn about all these censored cartoons.
This goes back to the reason I started this thread: to try to understand a disgust that is powerful enough to remove hundreds of cartoons and cartoon scenes from popular culture, but is incomprehensible to many of us.
As a few people in this thread have demonstrated, much to the forum's shame, "if I'm not personally hurt by it, it's trivial and others are being oversensitive," to paraphrase.
It really depresses me that the youth of today only gauge their responses by what they have actually lived through. I valued my friend's Jewish viewpoint because of my knowledge of the holocaust. I wasn't alive then, but I am aware of it.
It's sad that many aren't aware of the Civil Rights movement. I grew up with it and I respect those that fought for equality.
I still don't understand why Fagin having red hair made all things better...Maybe my friend figures the red hair would transfer responsibility to the Irish. Being half Irish I didn't object and never heard from any other Irish descendants that it was objectionable.
My work was never designed to injure any particular race...I may have been trying to influence opinion on a particular political party, but I always thought that was fair game. Support certain viewpoints and I will call you on it, if I feel it's unfair to the rest of the world.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
[quote=SpaceGhost2K]The term "honky" refers to a white male, who would drive into a black neighborhood and honk his car horn. When the poor black families heard the sound, they would send their daughters out for the white men, who would have their way with them, and then give them money.
I/quote]
LOL!
According to an episode of Barney Miller, "HonkY" refers to the stereotype of whites' nasally sounding voices. I would assume the writers of the show would have their ducks in a row to wirte something among some African American cast members and audience.
I believe the poorest people anywhere would not send their daughters out to prostitute en masse. That definition sounds racist and ridiciulous and incredulous to me.
I have never heard the car honking description of the term "honkie". I have hear the other description, reapetedly and from different sources.
"Honky, when used as a pejorative meaning white, was first used in 1967 by black militants within SNCC seeking a rebuttal for the term nigger. They settled on a familiar word they felt was disparaging to certain Americans of European descent; hunkie meaning an American of Slavic or Hungarian descent.
"The word "honky" as a pejorative for caucasians comes from "bohunk" and "hunky". In the early 1900's, these were derogatory terms for Bohemian, Hungarian, and Polish immigrants. According to Robert Hendrickson, author of the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, African-American workers in Chicago meat-packing plants picked up the term from white workers and began applying it indiscriminately to all Caucasians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honky
Interesting. Thanks Harvey.
All this "honky" talk gets me thinking about the classic SNL bit with Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor. I always loved Pryor's escalation of the term:
"Honky..."
"Honky honky..."
"DEAD honky....", as Pryor's lip starts twitching.....:D
From www.urbandictionary.com
That's a site where users submit definitions and everyone votes on which are the correct ones.
I think I'll stick with [I]The Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816059926/sr=8-2/qid=1154730692/ref=sr_1_2/104-5744132-0835106?ie=UTF8
[/I]
If I were to explain the word to someone, I guess I'd stick with the drive-thru prostitution definition. Better story.
Yeah, homie's got my back.
That's from urbandictionary.com, too.
So what's the difference between taking the word of a guy who had to research it and put it in a book to sell it, or contributions from people who might have first-hand knowledge and contribute it to a free site?
Ae those other animation forums better and more official because you have to pay to post there, but it's free here? Hey, only the real hardcore animation people would PAY to post, so their input must certainly be more... correct.
The key word there is "might."
One guy is an etymology scholar. The other is some guy who's reporting an urban legend.
I checked the definition of only one other word on UrbanDictionary to gauge the reliability of that site.
Here are UrbanDictionary's 4 top-rated definitions of "racist":[LIST=1]
[*]Me. I was a racist, I was in the KKK. It has been 2 years since I left and found religion. I had said many hateful things that I had not known what they meant to the person they went to.
[*]If you're a white man, this is what you are.
[*]A term usually used by minorities to get out of any situation.
[*]Someone who drives a race car for a living.[/LIST]Hmm.
I think Jabber nailed it. The reason it was voted the most popular definition is because it's racier (not a pun) and more exciting than the truth; but if you stop and think about it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It sounds like a dumb joke or slur that someone started a while back and people started to believe. Seriously it sounds like someone's attempt to turn the "honky" epithet around and make it more disparaging to blacks than to whites.
"They're calling us honkies, are they? I know. Let's make up a rumor that the reason they call us honkies is because they pimp out their daughters. They'll fall for it, or my name isn't KKK Grand Dragon Joe Bob Jethro, Esquire."
What does studying bugs have to do with it?
I hope you are just trying to be funny Space Ghost. Are you trying to derail the discussion?
Entomolgy is the study of bugs.
Etymology is the study of the origins of words.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Nah, that specific argument is over and Ghost signed off with a funny joke. He must have been inspired by the honky-whore joke that so many have taken literally, and by that silly race car definition of "racist."
[I]He's off and flying as he guns the car around the tracks
He hates Mexicans, Hebrews, Arabs, Eskimos, and Blacks
Go, Speed Racist
Go, Speed Racist
Go, Mel Gibson, Goooooo!
[/I]
Yes, I was trying to be funny. This is an animation site. Generally, there's humor in here, somewhere.
As far as Harvey's argument, I still don't buy it, but I AM about done discussing it. My explanation for the term "honky" didn't come from this site. Actually, I heard it from a former boss who was told the explanation by singer Jeffrey Osborne. It just so happened that it was the first explanation offered at urbandictionary.com. And, it happened to be first, because most readers of that site accepted it as the most likely explanation.
Harvey, maybe you can tell me why a site with predominantly black contributors, would choose a definition that demeaned blacks if it was made up by a white guy who used the opportunity to elevate the white man and demean the black man. If it were posted on a predominantly white site, I might buy that.
It would seem to me that visitors to urbandictionary.com would have been more likely to select a definition that demeaned whites and NOT blacks.
Unless it's right, of course.
Besides, you know the name and background of the man who suggested the "bohunk" theory, but you don't know anything about the man who suggested the "honking John" theory. Read his/her entry. You can tell it came from a more educated source than most of the entries under that word. The person who made the submission might also be a student of etymology. Can you disregard his suggestion simply because you don't know his qualifications but you do know the other guy's?
In fact, he said the source was unknown and could be from any of three origins. Your guy says it's definitely from "bohunk." In my opinion, that makes my guy more believable than yours. It makes your guy look like someone who has to come across as an expert to sell books, where my guy has nothing to gain personally from his explanation.
We're still having this argument?
I don't know what to tell you except "go back and re-read those top 3 definitions of racist."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=racist
Do those sound like definitions approved by "predominantly black contributors," Ghost? Does that sound like a site with accurate definitions, or definitions that most people just pulled out of their asses? Do those sound like definitions that are meant to "demean whites and not blacks." I mean, c'mon, man. Don't make me pick an eyes-rolling smiley.
Finally, you might want to check out the following links, which discuss it:[I]Ya see, the way this word-origin game goes, there are all kinds of stories floating around about why we say the goony things we say, and a lot of them sound good -- maybe too good. And that should be your first clue that something's wrong. ... [The horn-honking definition] has all the earmarks of an explanation that was made up long after the word came into use, maybe as somebody's idea of a joke etymology, then got passed around because it sounded good, and was added to that big pot of reeking trivia called "common knowledge."
[/I]http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma_show.php?id=376There are various false origins based on the form honky, which we have seen isn't the original. One that is commonly touted is that the term comes from white men driving through African-American neighborhoods looking for prostitutes. They would drive slowly, honking their horns to get the attention of the streetwalkers. Another is that the honk comes from the "nasal" qualities of white accents. (Source: Historical Dictionary of American Slang) http://www.wordorigins.org/Words/LetterH/honky.html
There's really no good argument for believing that nonsense, but believe what you want to believe.
Why are we focussed on "honky" when the rest of the world is focussed on what Mel Gibson had to say? And this morning I see that Madonna is back in the forefront.
Personally I don't care what either of them says or does. I care more about a huge portion of the population (Muslims) being painted as terrorists.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I grew up watching Tarzan and cowboy movies. I learned to fear African natives and native Americans. I hope the world doesn't fall into the ideology that anyone different from ourselves is a threat. But I fear that's how we are being marketed.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
The Tarzan movies even brought in cannibals and shrunken heads, even though this practice is more prevalent in South American. And Tarzan was supposedly in Africa.
I was young I bought into it. I won't buy into seeing all muslims as suicide bombers. The Palestinians have done this because they have no other alternatives, not the Lebanese or Hezbollah. I will never again see American Indians as heathens that sought scalps and didn't value human life. They valued life, they valued the environment more than we do now. We forced them into reservations located on land that wouldn't support life ordinarily. It was land the white man didn't deem cultivatable.
I will show my displeasure by speaking out against corporate and oil interests. Call me racist!
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Yesterday I discovered the ReFrederator video podcast on iTunes. It consists of vintage public domain cartoons released one-a-day. Among the awesome content that's on there (The Dover Boys, black and white Popeye, even an Alice comedy), I found "Inki and the Myna Bird." It's a fantastically surreal cartoon, but it obviously uses a stereotypical depiction of Inki (not to mention his name).
Given that it's a great example of the bizarreness that only animation can convey, should it be banned anyway because of the way Inki is depicted? Other than the native dress and "blackface" character design, he acts more or less like any other animated kid.
Hello.
Though many (or all) of the films on Havey's list would not be on my list today. Let us remember that was a different time period ( over 60-70 years ago).
We did a screening one time of a collection of animated films from the Smithsonian in D.C. The screening was manily made up of the films on Harvey's list and others that were even worst.
At the end of the evening there was shock, discomfort, and regret.
The regret wasn't for watching the films but for the morays of the time.
Personally, I think we could make even more progress than we have- especially since 1960's when the Civil Rights Act was passed- but thats another discussion.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
Let me just clarify (again?) that I'm not stating that those films and shows are racist. I'm asking whether they're racist.
I don't feel it's always obvious when a caricature or stereotype is racist.
I was hoping that people would explain where they think the line is, but I guess that isn't going to happen. It's a tough topic; rather, an easy one to gloss over, but a difficult one to deconstruct.
At least for me, something is racist when the stereo type portrays people in a negitive light. If it's a positive stereotype, then it's fine. Of course this is very big simplification of a very fuzzy, grey line.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
That doesn't seem to be the standard in the entertainment industry. It seems to be acceptable to portray negative stereotypes as long as you mix in some positive characters of the same race; e.g., blaxploitation and gangsta flicks, Black sitcoms of the 1970s, cartoons like Boondocks.
This gets back to my question about whether Bosko, Clampett's Coal Black, and others are racist since they are generally positive characters.
If something that only depicts negative stereotypes is racist, does that mean that all gangsta rap is racist?
Does the creator's own racial background come into play when a stereotype is used? Is "The Boondocks" automatically not racist because the creator, Aaron McGruder, is black? Is "Coal Black" automatically racist because Clampett was white? What about the Betty Boop shorts featuring Cab Calloway? Are they racist because they were created by the Fleishers, or not because Calloway participated in his own caricaturization?
so many questions
so few answers
:(
Well? How about offering a few?
you first
_
No no. Please; after you... ;)
If I had any answers I wouldn't have posed the topic in the form of a question.
Maybe if there'd been more intelligent discussion of the content of these cartoons, we'd have some answers by now.
I tend to think that a racist cartoon is whatever the NAACP says it is. Now if only I could drag them into the discussion to explain themselves.
This is why I said "...for me..." I can't speak for the whole entertainment industry.
You're going to get any answers to this Harvey, only peoples oppinions.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
People's opinions are good.
If people have insight into the NAACP's and minorities' opinions, that's good, too.
I was searching for some other topic and bumped into the following article:
http://faculty.fullerton.edu/rnazar/pop%20culture%20links-articles/Rascal%20or%20Racist%20Censoring%20a%20Rabbit.htm
Here's another example of cartoons making a beloved children's book author appear a little "dubious" by today's standards of PC:
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/Frame.htm
Hey Jabber had no idea Geissel could do other styles. Guess I never bothered to research him.
That's a nice piece of work, even though it isn't politically correct by todays standards. I am impressed he could do work like that. Although I've always appreciated his books. He's entitled to his political views as are we all.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
How do people feel about Song of the South and the cartoons within?
These are some of the best Disney shorts I've seen. Should they be available to the public somehow, or should I be ashamed for enjoying them?
background: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/sots.htm
a long time ago i used to think the same thing about the American Indians being backward or regressive.
funnily once i read something about a chief being asked by some western settlers about buying their land and he replied with "buying land? why dont you buy the air"
def not the perspective of backward people...
anyway. i digress.
Sure, they are racist.
However, you are overlooking some things:
Culture, era, production and story limitations and the simple concept that no matter WHAT story you tell, you cannot tell one that will please all people.
If one takes, say, an episode of Superfriends or Harlem Globetrotters and observes that it appears to be racist because it stereotypes certain kinds of people or seems to exclude other people, then is that a ACCURATE and SOUND observation?
Do things like stereo-typing or exclusion signify a racist agenda on the part of the creators/storytellers, or is it the case of those storytellers merely using TYPES to get their story across in the simplest and strongest ways?
I think its the latter myself.
C'mon now.........we've all seen good and bad stories and we've all seen stories where they've tried to make it mean all things to all people........and failed. Trying to add in all those equalizing elements to round out the tale and make the NAACP happy usually makes for a muddled mess that no-one wants to watch.
I mean do some of these stories NEED to show other races?
Would Lady and the Tramp work if the two cooks were Ethiopian?
I suppose that Star Trek is racist because Captain Kirk is white, that Spawn is racist because Al Simmons is not. Is the Disney Pantheon racist as well, because Mickey, Donald, Goofy appear to represent caucasians even though they are anthropomorphisized animals?
You can analyze some of these things to death and find what you are looking for fairly early on in the process-or you can look for ever and never find a point that rests on soild ground.
Yea, I think some of the above listed cartoons are indeed racist--based on how we view them now. That would be something that could be pretty hard to argue against.
What I think is a LOT harder to argue is that they represent deliberate, hurtful racist slurs or slights at the time they were created.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
Pages