Popeye- Censorship, Stereotypes and Propaganda

Ok, I'll admit it. I started eating spinach because of Popeye. I was 7 or 8 years old, and I practically begged my mom to start making spinach soup and spinach salad at home all the time, because I wanted to be just like Popeye.

I'm sure I wasn't the only kid to be influenced in this way by the cartoon. In fact, Popeye boosted spinach sales when he came out in the 30s, and later the Popeye spinach brand became the second most popular brand in the U.S. (see: http://popeye.com/, under the history section). 

And yet, if young minds are so easily influenced (could one say, manipulated?) by cartoons, why didn't all us Popeye enthusiasts start smoking pipes or go out and get tattoos? And why, in general, do we not find many kids dropping anvils or pianos on their classmates, or pushing them off cliffs (even though many argue that cartoons make kids more prone to violence)? How and why can a cartoon be selectively influential? And, if we find out what it is from cartoons that children are likely to emulate, and what they are likely to ignore, should cartoon creators use this information (and would they misuse it)?

I think Popeye, throughout his long comic strip, radio, and television history, provides a good framework for addressing these questions, and for analyzing the influence of cartoons on society and society on cartoons.  

An Unlikely Hero

Popeye is an unusual cartoon in general. There are few shows in which all of the characters are so physically unattractive (and with rather unpleasant voices). (http://www.popeye.com/, history section- “I Yam What I Yam”). The main character himself has a squinty (some say blind) eye, a disproportionate body (especially the enormous arms), anchor tattoos, talks grammatically incorrectly, and has a pipe which never leaves his mouth.

He is good natured and kind-hearted in general (especially towards his sweetheart Olive Oyl, his adopted son Swea’ Pea, and his quadruplet nephews), but can also be hot-headed (as we'll see, this sometimes gets him into trouble when he's in the Navy, although he always ends up saving the day, single-handedly). It seems that every episode of Popeye has some degree of violence (often a lot), as he defeats Bluto and other villains; however, this violence is always portrayed as having been justified. 

Besides Popeye, the other characters in the cartoon are equally unusual, especially Olive Oyl, the object of his and Bluto's desire, who is described as a "bean pole" with a "pickle nose" (http://www.popeye.com/). There is also the hamburger-obsessed Wimpy, the antithesis of Popeye: lazy, gluttonous, and often cowardly, with a big beer (or in this case, hamburger) belly, he seems to illustrate the dangers of an unhealthy, non-spinach diet:

Potential McDonald's spokesman, or poster child for the fast-food fueled "obesity epidemic"?

Brief History

The cartoon started out in 1919 as a comic strip called "Thimble Theatre" (see http://www.popeye.com/, 

history section- "I’m Segar, the creator man"). Ten years later, in January of 1929, an anonymous sailor appeared with a small part in the strip; he was later identified by Segar as Popeye. Over time, Popeye's role grew, until in 1931, he was the star of "Thimble Theatre". Since then, Popeye has spread to radio, television and film, has changed hands numerous times after the death of his creator, and has been voiced by many different actors. 

Why Spinach?

Popeye's affinity for spinach was the result of an unfortunate scientific error. In the 1890s, research was published showing that spinach had as much iron as red meat (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/pdf_extract/283/6307/1671). Later scientists realized that the initial report had misplaced the decimal point, making it appear that spinach had ten times the iron it actually did. Thus, it turned out that spinach was no more (or less) nutritious than cabbage, Brussels sprouts, or broccoli, all of which are probably just as hated by kids (and could have been just as easily pushed by the cartoon). However, by the time that this new report was published, Popeye was popular and was firmly associated with his spinach. Nevertheless, as the article suggests, this may have been a useful propaganda tool for the "meatless days" of WWII- eat your spinach and you'll be strong like Popeye, and then you'll be able to defend democracy against the Huns and the Japs! (See Propaganda section below).   

Society's Influence on Popeye

It is generally easier to spot the top-down processes influencing cartoons, especially in the case of commercials or propaganda. But what about in the other direction? How and why does a cartoon change from the bottom up?  

This bottom-up process has been crucial in the case of Popeye. In fact, if not for public opinion, we might not have had a cartoon called "Popeye" at all. As mentioned previously, Popeye was not one of the original characters of the comic strip "Thimble Theatre". Furthermore, the strip's creator had only intended him to appear once or twice as a nameless character fulfilling a stock role. However, the reader response to the appearance of the character was so positive that Popeye became a permanent member of the cast. Readers sent in letters to Segar, causing the creator of the strip to expand Popeye's part more and more, until he became the central character (and some other original characters disappeared). By the time it reached television, the cartoon had been renamed after the sailor man. (http://www.popeye.com/)

But Popeye hasn't always been such a hit with the public.As much as society has used its influence in Popeye's favor, so too has it used it against him (or some of his pursuits). In 1989, Popeye was used to advertise Quaker oatmeal. In these commercials, he abandons his usual super food, saying, "Can the spinach! I wants me Instant Quaker Oatmeal!", and so he is called "Popeye the Quaker Man": 

The Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers) had a rather strong negative response to these commercials:

“Friends across the country took exception to the Popeye the Quaker Man campaign. They didn't like the depiction of Quakers, however unlikely, as beating up people. They contacted Quaker Oats in great numbers. Embarrassed, the company withdrew the campaign.” (http://www.quaker.org/fqa/sandman.html#Popeye)

This example illustrates what is probably the most common idea of censorship today-- banning something because someone is offended by the material. However, this particular case is interesting to me because I personally would never have associated this commercial with the religious Quaker group, and I doubt that many other children (or even adults) would have, either. 

Censorship

Besides the Quaker campaign, there have been other cases of overt censorship of the cartoon (the others described here are arguably more top-down by the government or the cartoon industry). One example is associated with one of Popeye's "bad habits"- smoking. There has been a general attack in the past few decades on cartoons featuring smoking characters, suggesting they are glorifying the act of smoking and making it appealing to children. As a result, in later Popeye cartoons, although he continues to carry his pipe, he never smokes it, but only uses it to make tooting noises (especially in the theme song). [Although he also sometimes 'inhales' spinach through his pipe- what kind of message could that be sending to kids?] One specific example in which Popeye was targeted was in India, where the government said it would give this and other cartoons portraying smoking in a non-negative light a rating of 18 (to be viewed by people aged 18 or older): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/International-Stars/Popeye-cant-puff-in-front-of-kids-anymore-/articleshow/4697986.cms. As is clear from the article, this decision was not without controversy. 

Another example of censorship is of Popeye's wartime cartoons (discussed below under the section Propaganda), which have either been banned from being shown on t.v. (at least daytime television), or have been excluded from DVD collections, or both. It is interesting to think about the reason for this censorship. Many would argue that it is due to the fact that these cartoons have very negative stereotypes of other peoples and cultures (specifically Germans and Japanese), and that these portrayals could have a negative influence on children today (especially since they might not understand the context in which these cartoons were made, and their initial purpose). However, there are two questions to be considered here, brought up by other members of our group in discussion:

      First, if either the images or the censorship of them is harmful, is this harm restricted to or contained in the time period in which it occurred? If, for example, these wartime cartoons (if shown today) would promote xenophobia, then perhaps they should be censored. On the other hand, could they not provide an important historical lesson to kids today? Should we not learn from our mistakes and recognize our own prejudices?

     Second, if cartoons made some time ago which depict such stereotypes or prejudices are banned or censored today, is this because the content is harmful, or because the memory of the action is shameful? In other words, are we embarrassed of our own past, and are we attempting to cover it up or pretend it never was, if we censor these cartoons? This may go back to the historical lesson questions: perhaps we should deliberately show these cartoons to our kids. Not passively, as many cartoons are shown, but rather actively, explaining their context and using them to initiate a discussion on issues such as stereotyping, prejudice, propaganda, censorship, etc. In the case of the Popeye wartime cartoons, perhaps the censorship is occurring for both reasons (explicit- potential for harm; implicit- covering up an unpleasant past). Does this make it duplicitous? And, if so, is such censorship more harmful than censorship based on other reasons (such as commercial, ideological, etc.)? 

Popeye's Influence on Society

If something has to be censored, then clearly it has the potential to exert some influence on people. Otherwise, no-one would bother to censor it. So what has been Popeye's influence on society?

Perhaps Popeye's most well known impact has been in getting more kids (or at least more American families) to eat spinach. It is reported that, when Popeye first appeared in the 1930s and quickly gained popularity, U.S. spinach consumption increased by 33% (http://popeye.com). Since then, Popeye has received his own brand of spinach, and has had statues erected to him in several spinach-producing cities. 

Popeye was also one of the first cartoons to be merchandised on a large scale (with toys, lunch boxes, etc.). And, as one of the earliest cartoon heroes with super powers (in this case, fueled by spinach consumption), he is reported to have inspired the creators of later famous superheroes, such as Superman. (popeye.com).

In advertising, Popeye has been used not only for spinach (and unsuccessfully for Quaker oatmeal), but also for many other "healthy" products, including cereal (Wheatena on the radio), hearty Campbell's soup, an iron-fortified breakfast shake, and Minute Maid orange juice (in this commercial, the juice is so good that it makes Bluto and Popeye best friends- they even get matching "friends for life" tattoos!). In all of these cases, however, Popeye has to reject his favorite spinach for the latest health fad (all the commercials below are about 30 seconds long): 

     Campbell's Soup

      Minute Maid OJ

             Start Breakfast Drink

Another of Popeye's (debated, and unusual) contributions is the word "jeep" to our language- the vehicle was supposedly named after the character Eugene the Jeep on the show, and the reason for the name was even stranger, having to do with Eugene's magical fourth-dimensional properties (see character bios on http://popeye.com). 

Propaganda

The nature of the character and the show made Popeye a perfect candidate for WWII propaganda. It seemed natural that the strong and justice-loving seaman should join the Navy. This is exactly what he did; and the result, as we have seen with other propaganda cartoons of the time, was very stereotypical, racist portrayals of ‘the enemy’ (Germans and Japanese), which most people today find offensive [which may or may not explain the reason for the censorship of these cartoons, as discussed above]. Here are some examples of WWII Popeye (generally, “You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap” has been considered the most controversial/offensive):  

  You're A Sap, Mr. Jap

 Scrap the Japs

 Spinach Fer Britain

 In the Army Now

 The Mighty Navy

 Seein' Red White 'n' Blue

In most of these cartoons, the Japanese are compared to or portrayed as animals (rats, monkeys), who are conniving but, in the end, ineffective against the spinach-eating sailor, who usually takes them on single-handedly (or, in a very unusual partnership, defeats them with the help of Bluto in “Seein’ Red White ‘n’ Blue”). Thus even Popeye’s usual rival is not such a villain when compared to the Japs (although Bluto does try his hardest to avoid military service by injuring himself; nevertheless, in the end his patriotism gets the best of him). In contrast, the Germans are portrayed as bumbling buffoons- stupid, but still human.   

Today these cartoons are controversial not only for their stereotypical portrayal of the Germans and Japanese, and for their inherent violence, but also for other elements which may have been relevant during the time, but which would probably not be shown in cartoons today. For example, in “You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap”, at the end the last remaining Japanese officer commits suicide in order to ‘save face’ (or, as he says, “so, I lose my face”) by drinking gasoline and then swallowing fire crackers (a parody of Japanese ritual suicide or “hara-kiri”). Although suicide in general is a sensitive topic not often portrayed in cartoons, here it is also trivialized and mocked. For example, the ‘Jap’ lands feet-up and is shown to be wearing Geisha-style shoes (although the rest of him is in uniform); also, Popeye looks in his mouth with a match and says, “The poor fellow’s got gas on his stomach”. Popeye then flees, while the ‘Jap’ explodes along with the ship. Overall, the whole scene seems rather cruel and gruesome, especially if you understand what the Japanese officer is doing and why (and that the act, for the Japanese, was a question of maintaining their honor even when they’ve lost, and of not surrendering).

Popeye, the Poster Child of the Navy

Popeye didn't just join the Navy in his WWII cartoons- the real Navy also incorporated him into their ranks. It seems he became a sort of unofficial emblem or mascot of the Navy: his name was used as a naval code word (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/navexos_p-474p.htm), and his image was painted on the sides of Navy bombers (just like in the cartoon):

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3319177/Hulton-Archive?Language=en-US

Popeye painted on the side of a Hampden bomber plane 

And also: http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1063065012034635471jGNoTe

(An airplane in the 2002 Columbus Air Show)

This can be seen as another example of the reciprocal nature of the influence of cartoons on society and society on cartoons, which I think can be found in many if not all cartoons to some degree. I think that, in general, cartoons exemplify the way in which society builds upon itself and regulates itself, they way it is shaped by the times and in turn shapes what is to come, and also how important in this process is the incorporation of children and the shaping of their opinions and views, either to match the societal trends or to deviate away from them and to create new ones. Like Popeye says, "I yam what I yam"... but I (the cartoon) am also what you (the viewer) are, and you are also what I am, and we are both what society makes us, and we both make society what it is. Thus I think cartoons can be seen as a microcosm of society, with astonishing, and perhaps unseen, complexity and nuance. 

~Darya Task

The Black Solider in World War II Era Cartoons

During the 1930s, the black male was often depicted as a sleepy Southern lay-about or a larger than life, jazz-fueled musician. Although both jazz and jive were beginning to infiltrate white American popular culture, their black roots were either reduced to comedy or portrayed as dangerous.

Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat (1940) opens with a two minute sequence of various scenes featuring the black men of Lazytown sitting in a rocking chair to pick cotton, laying down on the job at the port, or otherwise being lazy. 

The landing of a light-skinned black woman and her introduction of a “boogie beat” causes the men to spring to life.

Of course, the men do not go about their work, but instead join the woman in her rendition of a folksy version of a jazz tune, playing instruments and dancing.

Clearly intended to send the message that black men were first and foremost listless, and second, motivated solely by frivolousness, particularly of jazz and dance (not to mention to arrival of a light-skinned woman), Scrub Me Mama represents a long tradition of vaudeville style depictions in cartoons. 

In contrast, the introduction of the black solider opened new space for the black male character, giving him both sexuality and agency. In previous cartoons, the rule was to avoid any reference to black sexuality or relationships. Scrub Me Mama features seemingly single black men and a lone, ineligible wash-woman. Although the introduction of the light-skinned woman is somewhat contradictory to this standard, there is always considerable distance between her and the others. Throughout the entire cartoon, she appears only with men the landing scene and when she is giving them instruction on how to wash. At other points, the animators make sure to draw in fences to divide the light and dark; one has a clear sense that there is an intended division between the two. 

Coal Black an de Sebben Dwarfs (1943) opens with a similar vaudeville theme, this time with an overt “Mammy” storyteller relating a black version of the classic fairytale Snow White. In this version, So White woes her zoot-suited suitor, Prince Chawmin’, with her boogie dance moves. The cartoon hits many of the traditional black stereotypes early on – the characterization of black men as untrustworthy gangsters, in particular. 

In the second half, So White meets the seven dwarfs in the forest – represented as black soldiers. Here, the characterization of black men has changed, although the scene must be read with the question of why when the black men are portrayed as dwarfs, it's acceptable for them to be soldiers.

In a following scene, the viewer sees an American flag flying over a military camp. The shot cuts to So White, who is cooking breakfast for soldiers at a stove. She informs us that she didn’t “join up” because she’s “good lookin’” but that she wants to help the war effort when she can.

The soldiers band together to take on the evil Queen.

After the poisonous apple renders So White unconscious, Prince Chawmin’ is called upon to administer the required kiss. Notably, this is one of the first scenes of black romance or relationship depicted in cartoon. When this kiss fails to wake So White from her slumber, one of the dwarf soldiers tries his luck. Sure enough, So White jumps to life, American flags shooting out of her hair. When asked what the trick was, the solider replies, “That is a military secret.” 

While the graphic representation of black men remains stylized throughout the cartoon, the degree to which traditional tropes defines the characters decreases. The soldiers represent good and are rewarded for their efforts to save the leading female character. In the end, the guy – notice the black man, even if far from reality, is given gender and sexuality – gets the girl.

Boogie Woogie Buggle Boy (1941) depicts a trumpet player of a Harlem jazz club who is drafted into the military as a bugle player.

Using the popular war-time tune, Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, the cartoon is constructed as a musical. Black soldiers are shown marching and doing weapons drills; however, they are most commonly depicted doing other tasks such as cooking.

Although the black soldiers are depicted in uniform performing the typical duties of one would expect in a military camp, they are disproportionally burdened with secondary tasks. In spite of black men serving bravely during the war, they are represented as contributing to the war effort as musicians and cooks. Some of the old stereotypical depictions of laziness bleed through in this cartoon as well. In total, the uniform is used by animators to demonstrate that black men were serving their nation. However, the extent to which the representation drew upon racial constructs remains high.

In one respect, the growing popularity of jazz and its counterpart boogie woogie allowed the cartoonists to relate black culture and images to an otherwise less familiar audience. The song Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy was made popular by the Andrews Sisters – a trio of young, white women who recorded a series of patriotic hits. Seen as ambassadors of music for the US, these ladies also traveled the world giving concerts for servicemen. Here, the sisters are changed into three men of the company. 

Stemming from the Andrews Sisters’ setting for the song, one scene of the film shows a black soldier dancing with two women. Once one gets past the height difference, it is clear this is a different role for the black male than was allowed in Scrub Me Mama. The scene implies sexuality and agency on both sides – neither gender appears more dominant (in contrast to Coal Black). 

World War II and the service of black men (and women) allowed for a shift in cartoon depictions. The uniform allowed animators to forgo the most egregious stereotypes and endow their black characters with newfound agency and nascent sexuality. 

Bryan Straub

Is there stereotyping of woman in Scooby Doo?

It’s hard to find women even featured in cartoons in the first place, but when they are, they’re portrayed as weak, vulnerable or subservient, and they paint an unrealistic picture of who they are in general. Women are usually helpless when it comes to defending themselves, and sometimes are no more than just decoration. Cartoons usually make women look powerless and usually were written in as housewives or stay at home Moms.  In The Flintstones, Wilma is always doing housecleaning, cooking, taking care of Pebbles, and even taking care of Fred.

So, do children use the portrayals of males and females in a cartoon format as a model for performance of their own genders?  I believe they do and even though it has been shown that more boys watch cartoons than females, cartoons tell cultural stories to, both boys and girls, that inform young minds about who they are to become, especially cartoons, which make up the majority of children's television viewing between the ages of two and eleven.

I looked at the cartoon series Scooby Doo that was shown predominately in the 70’s.  The female characters were Daphne and Velma.   In these cartoons males outnumbered females considerably. Females never played the part of the main hero or problem solver. In general, they were in supporting roles. The majority of females shown were also dressed and drawn stereotypically, with tiny waists and short skirts. The males seemed even more confined than the females in regards to the roles they were allowed to play and the way they are dressed. Male cartoon characters are not only more prominent than female characters, but they also portray a broader range of masculine traits. Male characters were powerful, strong, smart, aggressive and so on. Occasionally there's a token female cartoon character but she's bland, weak, and more submissive than aggressive.

Numbers of Males and Females		Scooby Doo: Where are You
Males		35
Females		12

In the following video from one of the episodes of Scooby Doo, Daphne screams out in horror as she points in the direction of her fear only to find that she has seen herself in a trick mirror that makes her look fat.  Her friend says “Don’t worry, you look perfect”.  Daphne is always portrayed as the frail, helpless, self centered female who most times is portrayed as not being smart enough to help solve the case.  If she does, she stumbles upon it by accident.  Always, her hair perfect, and her cloths unharmed.

Overall, the negative portrayal of women/girls in cartoons just furthers gender inequality. I think it’s about time this type of stereotyping stopped, so children will no longer be misinformed about gender roles. After all, women are now much tougher, stronger and more independent than ever. Cartoons show significant differences in the status, behavior and capabilities of female and male characters. Thus cartoons tell cultural stories that can't help but inform young minds about who they are to become.

Therefore, it can be assumed that children might use the portrayals of males and females in cartoon format as a model for performance of their own genders, in order to assimilate into the norms of their culture.  Since very young children often have difficulty telling fantasy from reality, they are particularly susceptible to the portrayals of gender types on television.

Family Stereotypes In Cartoons: Part I

As a continuation of the meanings and messages impressed upon children through cartoons, I would like to add another dimension to the debate.  As we have seen, through cartoons children are given both intentional and unintentional messages about racial stereotypes, violence, and even political attitudes during times of war. In addition, I believe that children are exposed to influential messages regarding   gender and family roles.  Specifically, there is a pattern of gender stereotypes in the popular Disney movies of my childhood in the 1980s and 1990s. 

When I reminisce about the Disney classics, I think of Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Bambi, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, and quite a few others.  It is hard to find a child who has not seen at least one or more of these movies, which both their continued sales and popularity suggests that they have been popular forms of entertainment for kids for years.  These movies seem to send safe messages about the triumph of good over evil, the importance of love and friendship, and the inspiration of the classic happily ever after.  But what other messages and patterns are hidden in the mix?

It was not until recently that I noticed a disturbing trend in the family dynamic of the Disney cartoon movies.  In the majority of these movies, the mother figures of the protagonists are either evil, powerless, dead, or missing from the storyline entirely.  Do you remember the mother figures of any of the following princess movies: The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty, or Beauty and the Beast? If the answer is no, then you are not alone.  The mothers in all of these movies are missing, most of which died before the story is presented to the viewing audience.  


Disney does diversify and include a stepmother in Cinderella, but what impression do we get from her? Cinderella’s stepmother is portrayed as the antagonist of the story, and essentially is the reason Cinderella lives as a servant in her family’s home. Divorce and a changing family dynamic have become more common in recent years, so what message does this portrayal send to a child who has a stepmother? 

Furthermore, it seems that the dominating pattern is these films is that the female protagonist, left without a mother, is encouraged to find solace in a father figure, or other male figure that normally takes the form of a prince.  For example, Ariel from The Little Mermaid chooses to temporarily abandon her mermaid fins for human legs after seeing Prince Eric on shore.  After falling in love with him, Ariel fears for her father's judgment, which emphasizes the dominating power of her father's opinion.

Another outstanding example of the father figure's power and mother's absent influence can also come from another popular Disney film with a male protagonist, The Lion King.  In the movie, Simba is to be the successor to his parents, Mufasa and Simba's mother, whose name I ironically cannot remember....I wonder why? When Mufasa dies, Simba is banned from the kingdom.  After which point, Simba's Uncle Scar takes over.  But what about his mother, isn't she still alive? Doesn't she have any influence? If Simba's forgettable mother had died in place of Mufasa, I doubt the plot would have unfolded the way it did.  The message this is sending to the viewer is that only Mufasa's death was relevant and Simba's mother was incapable to do anything about Scar taking control of the kingdom.  It was only after Simba's return to the kingdom that Scar was upseated as the King.

Luckily, Disney seems to be departing to some extent from the Disney model of family stereotypes.  In the newer Princess and the Frog and Tangled, the mother figures aren't dead! Nevertheless, the influence of these classics, which are continuously re-released from the Disney Vault, are still powerful in the messages they send to young viewers.

~Lindsey 

A Rocky End to an Era, Cartoons Rough Transition from the Red Scare

Who is really the bad guy? The 80's, the hair, the colors, the end of

an era. With the inauguration of Gorbachev into the U.S.S.R tensions

between the Soviets and Americans began to decrease, but leading up to that

dissent was as strong as ever. Rules for counter insurgency (Defined as weeding out violent dissent with in a foreign nations civilian population) is winning over the youngest generation so that when they reach young adulthood sentiment can swing in favor of the force being targeted (As in American soldiers seen giving candy to kids in the Iraq conflict). America has taken a proactive approach to U.S. Youth by using cartoons to influence young kids behavior. Things like cigarettes and alcohol are strictly forbidden to be advertised to kids, as in the example with Joe Cool for Camel cigarettes. On the other hand to sway public opinion cartoons have been used to influence kids since TV was created. I have three examples

demonstrating villains as being from nations at odds,at the time,with

the U.S. Focusing mostly on the Soviet Union,but also an example of Iran.

First is Hulk Hogan's Rock 'N' Wrestling cartoon episode named Driving Me Crazy. The two main bad guys are a Russian named Nicholi, and an Iranian named the Iron Sheik. The cartoon is based around the the Sheiks in-ability to drive. Thick accents ,rule breaking, and in what America views as the traditional clothing categorizes these villains(I mean it is the middle of summer does Nicholi really need to be in his winter clothes?!). Also notice the aggressiveness of the vehicle they drive compared to Hulk Hogan. There vehicle of choice is an over sized monster truck,that crushes and pushes everything  in and out of its way.Hulk Hogan, on the other hand, drives a smooth looking Cadillac(Demonstrating enemies of the state's inherent aggressivness). Nicholi and the Sheik, unable to solve their driving woes themselves , inlist help from a white American for help. He has all the right tips, but the "stupid" villains cannot possibly learn the correct way to drive, so insted they cheat to pass the driving test. Which of course proves unsuccessful,because???Yep you guessed it,the stupidity of the Russian Nicholi. 

The next cartoon is based of the popular movie franchise RAMBO. The name of the cartoon is Rambo and the Forces of Freedom and the episode name is Snow Kill. This might be the biggest lopsided adaption I have ever seen. The Rambo series was a hyper violent series with an emotionally challenged Vietnam veteran, alone, doing the only thing he was ever good at,killing lots and lots of people. In this series Rambo is no longer a lone soldier. He has a team of diverse allies who go around the world to stop a force of mercenaries and Neo-nazis. The head mercenary of the the bad guys is categorized by being European,but he is clearly of Soviet descent. His name is Griper because his metal claw,he has an eye patch,and wears a red beret. The series was made in 1986 so they do not call anyone overtly Soviet,but it is still implied. He is hyper violent,he leads or is part of all the attacks against civilian populations, and is ruthless. While on the other side you have Rambo,who kills literally hundreds through out the movie series is a friendly and emotionally stable guy in the cartoon. He is willing, at a moments notice, to jump into combat, and in this episode is actually seen talking to a family of whales about their kids.

The third clip is called "The Rescue",watch the beginning how the opposing force invades and captures a South American nation. The leader in the tank is clearly Soviet ,and again Gripper is seen busting in on a family taking them prisoner. It is important to note that during the 80's was the top secret Operation Condor in which the U.S. government supported dictators and government coups in Latin and South American countries to protect against those nations becoming communist(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor). The way in which we manipulated the rest of the Americas for our own portection is spun here to look like a reactive(As opposed to the Soviets aggresive approaches) response to cries of help from a small bullied South American nation. In the movies Rambo would have probaly been forced or tricked into the role of savior,going in alone and leaving bodies in his wake.Not in this RAMBO! In this episode the U.S. government sends a group of their best,with Rambo, to save the nation of Tiara Libre of Northern South America,and free them from the tranny of this invading foreign force.

In Closing-

It is hard to say how I feel about these cartoons or cartoons from the 80’s in general. Cartoons from G.I. Joe to Rambo have aggressive Soviet stereotypes, and these are, most likely, the first exposure to American Soviet politics kids actually paid attention to in the 1980’s. The real question is the painting a false reality a bad thing? The countries paint America as a truly courageous and righteous hero, responding only to soviet or other U.S. enemy aggression. Even in the Hulk Hogan cartoon intended to be a comedy, the villains are shown to be big stupid brutes, and though this is not reality, I am not totally sure that by distorting reality a little bit for children to love their country is a bad thing. If we look at elementary school education many negative aspects of history are left out.  Things like our founding fathers racism, extra martial affairs, or war crimes are not taught to children. Kids in third grade do not learn about American settlers in-humane treatment of native Americans giving them blankets infected with small pox’s ,  or that the U.S only won the Revolutionary war through a series of British errors coupled with the King’s decision that the conflict was not worth the economic burden it was causing the crown. Censoring this material gives children a sense of pride, and I am not sure whether that is bad or good. All I know is my dad always told me you only get one first impression. The first thing we show children is something that could have a lifetime of implications. We teach and show kids the most positive awe inspiring information and media early in child hood, and through out there lifetime they can decide if their original pro-American thoughts are a reality ,or just a cloud covering the truth. Of course we could do the opposite and air realistic cartoons showing U.S. faults. This could cause kids grow up pessimistic, and spectacle of U.S. policies and international affairs. I do not think that they will riot or protest, but is a little American nationalism a bad thing? Or is it bad that we need to teach nationalism through skewed media?

~Jason Suhy