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

U.S. Propaganda Cartoons during WWII

The World War II era in America was marked by U.S. propaganda that sought to influence multiple generations on the war effort being fought. The overarching goal of WWII propaganda in the U.S. was to present America as being totally and completely in the right, their allies being in the right and their enemies being totally and completely wrong. One of the methods of distributing these propaganda messages and getting them out to the younger generation was through cartoons. The propaganda within these cartoons depicted U.S. enemies as being unintelligent and completely evil, creating lasting impact on the opinions of youth that lasted after war times.

From  1942 to 1945, Walt Disney was contracted by the U.S. government to create propaganda cartoons in order generate support for the war.  In the cartoons depictions of Germans, they were seen as manipulative and lacking morals.
 "Walt Disney Goes to War". Life magazine: August 1942. p. 61–69.

One of the more famous of these animated propaganda pieces was Education for Death- The Making of a Nazi, released January 15th 1943. The film is based on the non-fiction book of the same name by Gregor Ziemer.

Education for Death is a harrowing story of an innocent German boy who is turned into a savage soldiers through years of brainwashing by the Nazi government.

The short shows what German youths viewing Adolf Hitler a knight in shining armor rescuing a Valkyrie (Germany) who is under threat the threat of an evil witch (Democracy). Brainwashing as well as the strong pervading over the weak are common themes throughout the short.

It is not until nearly the end of the film where the most glaring aspects of propaganda take place. Hans and the other Nazi Soldiers replace the Bible with Mein Kamf, the crucifix with a Nazi sword and burn down the Catholic Church.  The Nazis were not out to destroy Christianity but rather use Christianity to defend their positions.


In the end Hans and his fellow soldiers are shown to be walking steadily to their graves, completing their education for death. The death of the Nazi's was of course just  assumption in  1943.  Of the WWII propaganda films created Education for Death is one of the more fact based and less offensive of the films released.  While the film is right not to sympathize with the Nazis It does create an overly simplistic view of Nazi Germany's goals and therefore an overly simplistic view the United States' enemies.



Another Cartoon released in 1943 by Walt Disney was Der Fuehrer's Face.  This film was much more in the vein of traditional propaganda.

The Germans Nazis are depicted as absurd caricatures and while Education for Death treated them as the threat, here they are depicted as a joke.  There is also a very stereotypical depiction of a Japanese solider who is shown with yellow skin and large buck teeth.

In the film Donald Duck dreams he is a Nazi.  He works at an ammunition factory and consistently hails Hitler whenever his face appears. This causes him to loose his sanity within the dream. Eventually he wakes up dressed in patriotic pajamas, hugs a miniature statue of liberty and proudly pronounces America.

Both Education for Death and Der Fuehrer's Face are banned cartoons, both are propaganda films and both are very different.  While some may justify these depictions of the German and Japanese by saying they were enemies during the time and needed to appear as enemies to children, the perceptions of these races most likely remained after the war.  While the Nazis and Japanese were responsible for horrible acts during WWII their depictions within these two films creates a racial association that goes beyond political associations and matters of war.  For children who are so easily influenced, a stereotypical caricature, does not define a war enemy but an entire people.  Japanese people especially, are still trying to overcome the stereotypes established by cartoons and comics that appeared during WWII.  Because of the associations and labels created by these depictions these cartoons are dangerous to susceptible minds but also important historical evidence that of the racism and stereotypes that permeated America, regardless of being in a time of war.  It is understandable why cartoons such as these as censored from appearing on television, not because they should not be seen, but because cartoons have an undeniable connection with children.  Cartoons such as these while historically important are not suitable for children at an age where they cannot separate stereotypes from reality.

The Cold War and Anti-Soviet Messages in Mid-Century Cartoons

     Tensions were high during the early years of the Cold War and mid-Century Americans saw a rise in anti-Soviet stereotypes. As I have been looking into children's cartoons of the 1950s and 60s, I have been surprised to see such blatant stereotypes in these programs. This time period saw the emergence of the diabolical Russian spy as a villian in many shows, an obvious reflection of the fears and tensions in America at this time.
    
     My personal feeling about the cartoons I've included, "Roger Ramjet" and "Rocky and Bullwinkle", is that they are meant to be funny. I don't think they intend to cause harm as the material is obviously over-the-top and serving as satire more than a serious opinion. The question is still in the back of my mind, however, whether any of this satire is appropriate for children? Since they are obviously going to be less informed on the current events regarding the Cold War and the humor is likely to go over their head, is this type of programming sending the wrong message? Take a look...

Roger Ramjet

     So this cartoon aired in the 1960s and depicts unmistakable Cold War stereotypes in villains such as Dr. Ivan Evilkisser, Noodles Romanoff, and Jacqueline Hyde, all members of N.A.S.T.Y. (National Association of Spies, Traitors, and Yahoos).  Noodles Romanoff and Jacqueline Hyde are both depicted as the stereotypical Russian spies, often in hats, glasses, and trenchcoats, and Dr. Ivan Evilkisser as a mad scientist. Ramjet gets his strength from proton pills which give him the power of 20 atom bombs for 20 seconds (http://www.retrojunk.com/). As an adult, I find this show to be very funny and I think it’s clear that the goal is satire and not propaganda; it is spoofing a patriotic and idiotic American hero rather than promoting him. However, this is a show geared specifically towards children and I have to wonder about the effect this might have had on them at this time. Since they would probably not pick up on the satirical aspects, is it subtly teaching them to fear the non-American bad guy and putting a stereotypical image of the Soviet Union in the back of their minds?

     And of course, we can't talk about anti-Soviet stereotyping without referencing "Rocky and Bullwinkle". Take a look at these two videos...

 Rocky and Bullwinkle

     The "Rocky and Bullwinkle" series ran from 1959-1964 and was known for its witty parody on contemporary topics, such as the Cold War. The main villains in the program, Boris Badinov and Natasha Fatale, were scheming and fiendish, but also completely inept, secret agents from the fictitious nation, Pottsylvania. Pottsylvania was a parody of a Cold War Eastern-European country, possibly a mix between East Germany (ex. the “Fearless Leader” in the clip wears a German cross and has a distinct accent) and the Soviet Union (ex. the mock-Russian accents of Boris and Natasha). Pottsylvania was said to be populated entirely by spies, secret agents, and saboteurs, and a place where the Cold War never thawed. While many considered Pottsylvania to be a spoof, it was considered offensive to the government of the Soviet Union, where the show was banned for being anti-Soviet propaganda. While the show does seem to balance out anti-Soviet plotlines with those that imply the idiocy of the American government (ex. Boris and Natasha can't tell if the American government has been goof gassed or not), it is pretty easy to see in these clips why the show could be considered anti-Soviet. In these episodes, for instance, “Fearless Leader” is an evil dictator and says that Pottsylvania’s main export is "mean". Not to mention the obvious stereotypes of Boris and Natasha, who are clear depictions of Russian spies and are usually trying to steal something to take back to their homeland with the hopes of gaining control over other countries (Hendershot, Cynthia, Anti-Communism and Popular Culture in Mid-Century America, pg. 85-87).

     So the question here is should these shows have been censored when considering that the target audience is children? To me, there is two sides of this coin. First off, I think these shows are funny and I don't think they have the intentions of obvious anti-Soviet propaganda. The way that they use stereotypes reminds me of "Family Guy" and other similar programs, where stereotyping is used for humor and while at first it seems offensive, it more makes fun of stereotyping in general than it actually pushes a social agenda. And these thoughts were generally supported at the time, as both programs were popular for their appeal to adults as well as children. So, for those reasons, I think considering the programs propaganda is somewhat off-base and over-dramatic. However, on the other side of the coin, shows like "Family Guy," though animated, are not geared at children (the show has a TV-14 rating), and, therefore, the humor can be considered more appropriate (http://www.tvguide.com/).

     While I don't think children are being scarred for life from "Roger Ramjet"or "Rocky and Bullwinkle," should they be viewing blatant stereotypes of foreign countries and unfamliar cultures? Should they be watching material about coutries at war and viewing plotlines about spies and atom bombs? Should our nation's politics, particularly involving war, even be registering in a child's mind, or is it just causing unnecessary judgements and fear? And think about the Russian immigrant child in an American school at this time and what kinds of stereotyping they may have had to deal with. Something to think about...

~Ashley

Anime Cartoons in the States and in Japan. What's the Difference and Does it Matter

As we are discussing the effects of cartoons on children and if they are created with some sort of censoring in place or with a hidden agenda, it is worth looking at how censoring may not be working with cartoons.  I wanted to look at Anime cartoons, not only because I wanted to know more about them, but also because they are extremely popular with today's children.  After viewing both Japanese originals and Americanized versions of DragonBall Z, it is clear that some of the themes present in the Japanese version have been modified to "better suit" the American viewer.

There is graphic violence that I could not imagine seeing in a children's cartoon in DragonBall Z episode clips I found on YouTube.  These Japanese originals are gruesome, but in Japanese culture these are themes that are not taboo, as they are here in America.  Many of the anime story lines come from the mythology of East Asia, and so they are just retelling old stories via anime.  It would be the same for Americans viewing any greek mythology as a cartoon, but it is hard for us to understand their mythology having no background.  There are plenty of "adult" themes in the greek stories that we learn in school and otherwise, but those too are more censored for content with younger people.  The Japanese versions are giving honest depictions, and who is to say that's right or wrong, even though I don't really like watching it.

There is depictions of torture and brutality in the clip below from the Japanese version.  It is interesting to see the gore, even in cartoon form that is allowed to be shown in children's cartoons in Japan.

Here is more of a regular fighting scene japanese style as well:

So, that was pretty interesting, right? Now let's take a look at the Dragon Ball Z Kai shown on Nickelodeon.  It is still basically the same story lines, but the fighting is much different than the example from the Japanese version above.  There was definitely no killing scenes on the nicktoons website, so there's censorship for ya right there.  The actions are really fast in both, so before you know what happened one of the characters is on the ground in pain.  In the Japanese ones you definitely see more hand to hand combat though.  It's almost as if the physical combat parts are cut out in the American versions.  There is also an emphasis put on their alien powers as battle weapons over hand to hand combat.  Be the judge for yourself by following the link.

http://nicktoons.nick.com/videos/clip/dragon-ball-z-kai-kaio-ken-times-twenty-an-all-or-nothing-kamehame-ha-clip-2.html

Either way, censored or not, these cartoons are violent.  I'm not sure that cutting out the more graphic violent images is taking too much away from the overall violence that they show is based on.  Just because there are less punches or killings shown in the American episodes doesn't make them any better for kids than the Japanese ones.  It is easy to see that censorship is taking place in americanized anime cartoons like Dragon Ball Z, but I don't think it's really effective censoring.  If anything, there is a possibility that not showing the more graphic parts makes kids more inclined to try defending themselves the way the characters do and potentially hurting themselves or one another more than if they actually knew what they were doing.  I am not saying I condone violent TV for kids, but I am saying there must be a better way to censor, or better not to censor it at all.

-Tracie

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/1998-07-09

Final Thoughts:

The process of creating this blog has left me with conflicted ideas about how I feel about cartoons.  In relation to the information I posted and staying specifically to my thoughts I think I have drawn a few conclusions, but also raised some more questions in my own mind.  I believe cartoons reflect the society of the time in which they are created.  They follow the social norms and undoubtedly have an agenda to push.  The censoring on anime cartoons such as Dragon Ball Z takes away some of the violence that the Japanese originals have, but I don't think it really matters.  The false sense of reality and the sensationalism of violence in these cartoons and others is still a problem, even if it does not show specific acts of violence graphically.  Kids want to act like their favorite heros/villains in play and if the characters are jumping off ledges to catch bad guys or holding someone under water to make them tell the truth, who's to say that a child won't try that?

I don't think censoring all violence in children's television makes sense or is realistic.  The violent acts depicted aren't even necessarily the problem, it's that our society shows and accepts them and as relatively normal actions.  It is something that is easier to talk about and explain than issues related to sex/sexuality or other taboo subjects, so it is pushed out into the media as an okay form of entertainment, and it's not.  It seems as though whoever decides what is put into children's television is saying "Give kids sensational violent cartoons and they won't ask questions."  That's what I feel the role of violence on TV has come to be.

Old Tom and Jerry Cartoons

Before the familiar cat and mouse duo, there was a Van Beuren cartoon with these two in the 1930s.
See: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/tomjerry/

The Mill Creek Entertainment collection 150 Cartoon Classics has many of these early Tom and Jerry cartoons. Although I could not rip them from the DVD, they can be found on YouTube:

"Plane Dumb"- Tom and Jerry in blackface- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiMpnCp8QbI

"Redskin Blues" - Native American stereotypes; possibly sexist representation of women; military themes- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcJjSk1HKeg
also note the swastika at 4:50 on an Indian tee-pee (although in 1932 this may have had a different meaning)

"Barnyard Bunk"- Great Depression; alcohol portrayal- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlE-MglrjM
note: Tom and Jerry were renamed Dick and Larry in a later attempted revival (as they appear in this video)

"A Spanish Twist"- sexist (and sexual) portrayal of women? also, end of Prohibition (scene starts at 5:18)- promotion of alcohol?!- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMqkbEOKAp0

"Piano Tooners"-  a little risque? (female characters)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xK9Y1GrfF4

Also have to mention that there are NO WARNINGS or parental guidelines on the DVD collection, and it says “Family Holiday Entertainment” in the DVD titles/track listings. On Amazon.com this DVD collection is rated PG.


-Darya, 02/05/2011