Tom and Jerry cartoons carry racism warning.

[Parasondox]

Paradox is now on the crease, ready to bat. Will he suffer a duck like in the last innings.

Cartoons, sorry, Animation, a strange medium at times. To the target audience it can be soft, safe and innocent like a cute puppy but to others, there is always a hidden meaning behind something. I think many on the Escapist have asked, including myself, what cartoons, sorry Animation, they would relive again or even let their children watch. Innocent ans simple answers. Well, it actually depends on the time/era you grew up in.

Spoiler: Article about the Tom and Jerry disclaimer

Tom and Jerry cartoons on television are being accompanied by a warning that they may depict scenes of "racial prejudice".

The classic cat and mouse cartoons, some made more than 70 years ago, carry a warning for subscribers to Amazon Prime Instant Video.

There have been claims of racist stereotyping in the depiction of a black maid in the cartoon series.

Amazon's warning says such prejudice was once "commonplace" in US society.

Tom and Jerry, once a staple of children's television on British television, is being presented with a cautionary note about "ethnic and racial prejudices".

'Trigger warnings'

Amazon's streaming subscription service, formerly branded as LoveFilm, includes the cartoons in its comedy collection.

But Tom and Jerry: The Complete Second Volume is accompanied by the caution: "Tom and Jerry shorts may depict some ethnic and racial prejudices that were once commonplace in American society. Such depictions were wrong then and are wrong today."

The wording is similar to disclaimers accompanying some collections of the cartoons on DVD.

The warning was attacked as "empty-headed" by cultural commentator and professor of sociology, Frank Furedi, who said it was a form of a "false piousness" and a type of censorship which "seems to be sweeping cultural life".

"We're reading history backwards, judging people in the past by our values," said Prof Furedi from the University of Kent.

Tom and Jerry was first produced by the MGM film studio in 1940. The cartoons, directed by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera and produced by Fred Quimby, ran until 1957, with carefully choreographed chase scenes set in the homes and gardens of suburban America.

There were more than a hundred short films made in this original series, winning seven academy awards. These included the Cat Concerto in 1946, the Two Mouseketeers in 1951 and Johann Mouse in 1952.

In the subsequent decades there have been numerous re-launched television versions of the series, with varying styles and varying degrees of critical approval.

The claims of racism are longstanding. When the original versions were shown on US television in the 1960s some scenes were edited.

There have also been complaints about the characters smoking cigarettes, with changes made to recent screenings.

'Superb' animation
Steve Abrahart, senior lecturer in animation at De Montfort University, said the quality of animation in the early Tom and Jerry films was "superb".

The cartoons are still seen as being among the best made, he said.

But Mr Abrahart said the attention to detail of the early versions was lost in some of the later re-makes.

On the question of the portrayals of race and ethnicity, he said today's animation students were not shocked by what they saw in old cartoons.

He said they understood how attitudes changed over time.

As well as racial stereotypes, he said there were questions about the representation of women and other nationalities in animations from the 1940s.

The idea of running warnings ahead of potentially upsetting moments in films or books has become a controversial topic in US universities.

There have been calls for the use of "trigger warnings" which could flag up to students that they are about to come across descriptions of physical brutality, aggressive language or sexual violence.

The suggestion that these should be inserted into lessons about classic texts has angered some academics.

Prof Furedi said calls for such trigger warnings were a form of "narcissism", with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.

"A tolerant society needs to discuss disturbing art," he said.

Source: BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29427843

I don't mind the disclaimer and think it's fine and fitting. I am quite glad that Amazon and Warner Bros didn't go down the "censor and airbrush out of history" route, with the concerning episodes of Tom & Jerry. Yes, the episodes will offend some but I am in the strong belief that we shouldn't hide away the negative parts of history for fear of offending people today. Which is why I also agree with the disclaimer stating what's in the content and giving a brief notice about how attitudes were like when cartoons like this were made during that time, before viewing said content.

So what do you think about all of this? The disclaimer, the warning, the showing of said cartoons that could cause offence.

 

[shootthebandit]

Does family guy have warnings about racism? When some of the jokes in family guy are intentionally racist (and its made in the present day)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Isn't this what the ratings system is for?

"The following program is rated _. It contains __________, ___________ and ___________"

Alternatively, shows have been sticking warnings in front of themselves for ages. I don't see any problem with this.

(Apparently that's why so many movies start off violent as well, to tell audiences that this is the kind of movie they will be watching)

 

[Parasondox]

Does family guy have warnings about racism? When some of the jokes in family guy are intentionally racist (and its made in the present day)

Good point. If Amazon Prime has it in their library, then that would make sense. It up to Fox to agree with Amazon to put the disclaimer on Family Guy, just like Warner Bros did with Amazon over Tom & Jerry. I think that's how it works. Someone educate me if I am incorrect.

 

[Parasondox]

Isn't this what the ratings system is for?

"The following program is rated _. It contains __________, ___________ and ___________"

Alternatively, shows have been sticking warnings in front of themselves for ages. I don't see any problem with this.

(Apparently that's why so many movies start off violent as well, to tell audiences that this is the kind of movie they will be watching)

And yet how many people still ignore the rating system and still complain. It's like the parent complaining about her kids being exposed to Call of Duty and making a campaign to stop the game being sold despite the fact the game is rated 18 and labelled "contains, violence, gore and strong language."

Even when there is a warning, people would still find a way to create a storm.

Interesting note about the movies and violence. The blood and gore happens in the first 5 minutes just to warn the audience of what to come. It's just the middle is were most of those movies become flat.

 

[Aethien]

Does family guy have warnings about racism? When some of the jokes in family guy are intentionally racist (and its made in the present day)

Family Guy is making jokes about racism though, much different from the old Warner Bros cartoons which were sometimes just very racist. I think they've had an introductory screen on the DVD's for a long time now that explain the racism and that they didn't remove those cartoons because they are part of history and should be seen in that context and that we shouldn't pretend that it never existed.

Personally I think that's a good way to go about it.

 

[VanQ]

Does family guy have warnings about racism? When some of the jokes in family guy are intentionally racist (and its made in the present day)

Family Guy is making jokes about racism though, much different from the old Warner Bros cartoons which were sometimes just very racist. I think they've had an introductory screen on the DVD's for a long time now that explain the racism and that they didn't remove those cartoons because they are part of history and should be seen in that context and that we shouldn't pretend that it never existed.

Personally I think that's a good way to go about it.

Tom and Jerry is a Hannah Barbara cartoon, not a Warner Bros. one. But yeah, cartoons and television series have been doing this for a while now. Putting a disclaimer at the front saying "watch at your own risk" is really the best option short of outright censoring cartoons from a bygone era. I think it's more important to leave them in tact and admit that the representations in them may not be in line with current modern culture than to censor them.

 

[Queen Michael]

Honestly, this is the best way to do it. Leave history intact and have a disclaimer.

 

[VanQ]

Tom and Jerry is a Hannah Barbara cartoon, not a Warner Bros. one.

Close enough.

You should probably add a few more words to your post to avoid low content post warnings. Single sentence posts are okay these days but I think two words might attract the banhammer.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Mammy Twoshoes wasn't a maid (at least, I don't think she was explicitly shown to be a maid), and at no point was shown to be submissive to white people. Which would probably make her one of the first, if not the first, completely positive example of a black person in children's animation.

Then again, I didn't watch a whole lot of those old episodes when I was a kid and she might have well been a racist caricature.

And leaving a disclaimer there disowning racists is much better than redrawing Mammy or any other black character, which they did in reruns. It looked... a little odd.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Mammy Twoshoes wasn't a maid (at least, I don't think she was explicitly shown to be a maid), and at no point was shown to be submissive to white people. Which would probably make her one of the first, if not the first, completely positive example of a black person in children's animation.

Then again, I didn't watch a whole lot of those old episodes when I was a kid and she might have well been a racist caricature.

And leaving a disclaimer there disowning racists is much better than redrawing Mammy or any other black character, which they did in reruns. It looked... a little odd.

 

[Treeberry]

Maybe I didn't watch the right episodes when I was a kid but I just assumed she was Tom's owner. Same for the white-skinned lady you sometimes see. I just put it down to cartoon continuity (strangely, it never occurred to me that maybe Tom went through different owners just like real pets do sometimes).

Also, I didn't even know the human characters had names.

 

[Erttheking]

I always did get a little uncomfortable about the Thanksgiving episode where the bad guy tom was a Native American and Jerry was a pilgrim. Still enjoyed it, and this is honestly the best solution.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I guess it is suitable? I mean yeah I was taught that the black woman who look after Tom was a black maid which it was indicated it was set during that period (I had a lesson on historic animation back in Uni).

 

[Ratty]

Yep. Don't hide negative history, but do warn people about it. It's much more damaging in the long run when you pretend this kind of thing didn't happen.

Does family guy have warnings about racism? When some of the jokes in family guy are intentionally racist (and its made in the present day)

Good point. If Amazon Prime has it in their library, then that would make sense. It up to Fox to agree with Amazon to put the disclaimer on Family Guy, just like Warner Bros did with Amazon over Tom & Jerry. I think that's how it works. Someone educate me if I am incorrect.

Not really a good point though, because the shows are made for two different audiences. Tom & Jerry is targeted at kids, Family Guy (as much as I detest it) is targeted at teens and adults. Who will hopefully not take the racist jokes at face value the way a younger child would be much more likely to do.

 

[Muspelheim]

Sounds good. I'd say that the best way to defuse possible racist undercurrents is to contextualise them; "Hey, kids! This isn't okay today, but it was a different time half a century ago. Just so you're aware. Have fun!"

The best arrangement, since it respects the audience's ability to think and doesn't involve ugly cuts.

Related to this, I read in the newspaper that the old Pippi Longstocking movies were going through a bit of a pruning. They didn't go with the contextual approach, sadly, but the bits cut out are short and not really important to the plot.

(For interests, the main offending bit is that Pippi refers to her dad as a "Negro-king", as he is the chief of a native tribe of islanders on the Kurredutt island. At the time, negro was a neutral term in Swedish, but it has become a negative term over the years. One could understand why they wouldn't want to keep that bit in, even if explaining that and letting the children in the audience use their own heads would've been the better solution, in my opinion.)

 

[Twintix]

I'm with you guys; I'm okay with this. It shows the age they were made in, and a disclaimer telling the audience about this is better than censoring it, I feel. As long as it isn't, you know, outrageously racist. I'm hard-pressed to remember Tom and Jerry being that bad, though.

Now that I think about it, I remember one Tom and Jerry short that I had on VHS when I was little. One of those where he's alongside that little grey mouse. (Tibbles, I think he was called?) They're fleeing from Tom, and Tom suddenly gets a frying pan in the face out of nowhere. I always thought it looked a bit weird, like someone had cut something out from the middle.

Then I saw the original version a few years later, which was left intact on a DVD from Sri Lanka. Turns out that Jerry dressed himself and Tibbles up as a stereotypical black woman and her child to fool Tom. So, the jump-cut on the VHS I saw was because they cut out that scene, presumably because it was racist.

 

[Lieju]

I think that's a good way to handle it.
Especially since Tom & Jerry is not a cartoon you'd know to expect having that stuff.
(I only remember it having a cat and a mouse? So I wouldn't have even thought it had anything like that)

(For interests, the main offending bit is that Pippi refers to her dad as a "Negro-king", as he is the chief of a native tribe of islanders on the Kurredutt island. At the time, negro was a neutral term in Swedish, but it has become a negative term over the years. One could understand why they wouldn't want to keep that bit in, even if explaining that and letting the children in the audience use their own heads would've been the better solution, in my opinion.)

Yes, the same has been done in Finnish, where 'neekeri' was a neutral term. (Mostly because there were not particularly many black people in Finland until recently, so they were seen as exotic, but there was no real hatred or fear)

The thing about Pippi's father is a bit iffy though even without the word, it being the trope of a white man becoming the king of native tribes through, I dunno, the power of their whiteness?
I haven't read that book in ages but I recall it making me uncomfortable as a kid.

 

[WindKnight]

And yet how many people still ignore the rating system and still complain. It's like the parent complaining about her kids being exposed to Call of Duty and making a campaign to stop the game being sold despite the fact the game is rated 18 and labelled "contains, violence, gore and strong language."

My personal favorite anecdotal warning was a salesperson desperately trying to convince a mother that the Latest GTA wasn't suitable for their 12 year old, and her replying 'oh, he doesn't do any of that violent stuff, he just likes to do the racing.'

On topic, this makes sense. times have changed a lot, something which can become very apparent watching some classic cartoons.

 

[Danny Dowling]

everyone knew Tom & Jerry had racist stereotypes and references in them (the proper ones I mean). at least i thought they did.