P. C. IN ANIMATED CARTOONS

One person's "PC has gone too far" is another's "Such demeaning, racist stereotypes are inappropriate in the supposedly enlightened 21st century."

Broadcasters and sponsors keep their eyes on the bottom line, and most are reluctant to jeopardize it by deliberately presenting anything they know will alienate large percentages of viewers/consumers. "It's not worth it" is their most likely point of view, and that would be especially acute at this particular time in which the fires of social division are being fanned with aggression not seen in decades. 

Well, full disclosure: I'm not a woman, so I can't speak from that perspective. But the sense that I get - and the difference that I perceive between the two (since I'm not African-American, either) - is one of point of view. What I mean by that is this: while the act of sexual harassment in real life must indeed feel demeaning to women, the depiction of it is something that now reflects negatively on the perpetrator rather than its victim. I'll explain further.

What I recall of the Pepe LePew examples is that the cat (or whatever other creature) was always resistant to his advances...in pretty much the same way as I'd imagine such a real-life encounter to play out then or now. If we view the behavior of such a cartoon character of the '50s or '60s through a 21st-century prism of sexual harassment not recognized when those cartoons were made, he - rather than his victim - becomes the one whose behavior and characteristics invite scorn. 

Or to put it another way, I'd consider it "racist" to engage in demeaning racial stereotypes by depicting them, but not to depict those who display such attitudes. Put even more simply, it would be "racist" to depict an African-American character - or "sexist" to depict a female one - as only a stereotype, but neither "racist" nor "sexist" to depict a bigot or male chauvinist being the kind of ('s'cuse me) assholes they are.

I know that there are people like Seth McFarland  - or Bill Maher - who revel in political incorrectness by making everybody an equal target. And that's fine; they do their thing and take their lumps. But as you say, you weren't offended by that Family Guy episode; I know nothing about it, but can relate on a certain level. I'm not only a man, but a gay one, and all those raging stereotypes in films of the '30s - '60s are things I look at as quaint relics of a bygone age and can even regard with some humor. But I'd have to evaluate any such present-day depictions on a case-by-case basis: is it sympathetic and affectionate send-up or contemptuous put-down?

EDIT: Illustrating the point I was trying to get across in the first paragraph above, I was just watching a bit of Goldfinger on one of the cable channels, and the scene in which Bond - who could be fairly described as a sexual predator - forces himself on Goldfinger's assistant Pussy Galore (itself a sexist name for a character) exemplifies a point of view demeaning to females: after only a few seconds of passionate kissing, she willingly surrenders to his "superior" male domination, and is subsequently revealed to have then assisted the CIA in foiling her boss Goldfinger's plot. The contrast between this and the Pepe LePew citation becomes starkly obvious: in one, the female is weak and submissive in the face of male seduction; in the other, she's assertively resistant. To again simplify: the Bond film depicts females demeaningly; the Pepe LePew cartoons don't.

Ha! I tend to forget that Shield Of Mars is even there (how optimistic that the spear is always pointing upward).

Yes, those are valid points about burying history, and the value of that history as teaching tools. A few minutes ago, I was downstairs getting coffee and hubby and I kicked around what the appropriate contexts might be. A classroom certainly, but probably not on a cartoon channel or show geared toward children, where they might be absorbed by impressionable minds and no amounts of disclaimers would be paid any heed. Tough question (probably another reason it's easier for programming execs to simply avoid it).

At its most basic, I view political correctness as merely decency and sensitivity, but as with pretty much anything, it can be misused and "weaponized." The right has done so for decades, using it as a rhetorical club with which to beat the left. And now, in an irony of ironies, they're employing their own form of "PC as censorship" with all this fuss over the flag, the national anthem and "taking a knee" as an expression of protest.    
     

...view the Fritz the Cat animated movie and see PC flushed down the toilet...also, Tex Avery did a few great stereotypical cartoons featuring Little Hot Riding Hood with, of course, whistling wolves...

I have a DVD collection of "cartoons for adults" that is hilarious...

I think what we learned from the great debate about confederate symbols is that they are all but universally offensive to people of color, while a sizeable Minority of those who want to see the statues and flags remain in place ,in fact support the racist ideology these symbols embody.

Carrying this idea to the question of mammy two shoes , I take from it that practically all Black viewers would find this character offensive, while a sizable minority of white viewers would find it a truthful representation of Black women. My conclusion is that we will have to be a lot further along the path to a post -racial America before we can safely air such stereotypes. In the same way, I feel the recent German election demonstrates that given economic insecurity and pressure from immigrants of color( not guest workers but people flooding the borders) a neo - nationalist party is still attractive to a sizable minority of the German voters, and therefore the strict laws against display of Nazi symbols, anti Semitic and racist crimes are still a good idea.

Having said all that I heartily agree that Mammy two shoes was much funnier than the white housewife. I wish those cartoons , as well as Song of the South and Porgy and Bess were available.

Finally, the " I'm not a woman so I can't say" argument can only go so far. I'm a white , straight, Christian woman and step warily into issues of what is offensive to People of color, Jews , LGTB FOLKS , any group that isn't me. But I can and do heartily support any group, including white men, who speak up about what they find offensive. People don't speak up about minor annoyances. Well I admit there were a lot of ridiculous complaints during the late 60's early 70's about treatment of women. But the ridiculous minutiae was about women being so oppressed that we didn't have any idea who we wanted to be, so we were pissed off about everything. It didn't take so long to settle on real world issues, equal pay, decent maternity benefits and women's health care, a political voice, justice before The law for rape crimes. Notice in each one of these common sense real world issues, we still have a long way to go. Almost makes you think the male power structure would prefer we stay focused on getting men to quit holding the door.

Tom and Jerry was pretty mild.


I am not sure if Disney ever had the racial caricatures that Warner Bros had.

I found Friz Freleng cartoons funny but they did have a nasty streak, and they had some of the worst racial stereotypes (Bob Clampett's Coal Black and the Seven Dwarves was voted the funniest cartoon short in the 1980s by a major animation magazine-I wonder if it has the same distinction now).

People are way more sensitive these days, but more accurately, the media companies are more draconian about what they see as a negative portrayals of non white groups.

Disney's biggest faux pas AFAIK was the black centaur in Fantasia which modern Disney totally erased.

Recently I saw an article by a black writer complaining about a Dr Seuss ad from the 1940s which depicted black people like monkeys.
I think people forget that in 1940 the population of whites in major cities and towns was like 90 something percent. of course they would focus on their own, just as you would expect in China or Kenya. Secondly, caricature was always intended to be an exaggeration and not flattering!
There is a WW 1 military recruitment ad showing the German Kaiser as an ape seeking to rape naked American women!


Elmer Fudd is not a flattering portrayal of a white guy anymore than Homer Simpson is.

Homer Simpson is basically a retarded white man we are meant to laugh at.
Change his color and imagine the criticism. All the black characters on the Simpsons are smart. Even the Mike Tyson caricature. The dumb ones are white. They have hillbilly stereotypes. But I bet if some Arkanasas people complained, Fox still wouldn't change it.

As for the statues--it is culture erasing. Obviously if there is a majority black population in an area they dont want to see white people statues all over the place.

If Rome had a similar population injection, they would be calling to remove all Michelangelo's works too.

This is why true multiculturalism wont happen. At best you will have Canada with its incredibly boring film and tv. At worst you will get a Brazil situation (worst crime rate in the world).

I watch a lot of movies from England in the 60s and there are little things in there that would be considered racist today. Impossible to avoid. Best thing is to let people have their own spaces for their heritage because there will never be consensus.

Erasing history is a bad idea though. Just creates ignorance.