Censored Classic Cartoons

Originally posted by True_Moose: Ukk. I can understand certain censorships, like some of the more racist bugs bunny episodes made during WW2, but if they're not going to show them, then don't show them. Don't edit out the parts that were there. After all, they're our view on pop culture during that time, it's like revisionist history. When people like Ted Turner start to decide what we can and can't watch, thus begins social engineering. I don't object to him not putting them on because of ratings but honestly. Its kinda scary knowing that him and 5 others control something like 95% of US broadcast. Bah. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

By editing out the racist cartoons and shows and passages in books, you deny the new generation to know just where their ethinc people have been and how far they have come. Trying to edit history only makes people ignorant of their past. It is important for all people to know where we have been so that we can keep from returning to there.

BAD BAD BAD, censoring for any reason. Yeah you could make some kind of rating system so parents can protect their rights to educate their children on certain issues, but this is the next thing in my list of being PO'd at PC! Last month it was some ignorant woman who can't even use a dictionary to look up the word niggardly, no we can't even admit that during a war our entertainment industry and government used various means to get public support for the war effort. I HATE people attempting to keep others ignorant!

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: I agree Magik. Well I wasn't aware about the cartoons, but any censorship like this is petty and insulting to everyone, including those who are supposedly being protected IMHO. Anyone who read Enid Blyton books when they were younger will be pleased to know that Noddy and The Faraway Tree books are being revised - removal of golliwogs and brownies among other completely small-minded things [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

No more golliwogs ?? No more brownies ?? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]
And what of Hop, Skip and Jump ?? [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img]

And will they completely remove the book "Five go to BillyCot Hill" because it`s set in Cornwall, and mentions "foreignors" alot of the way through it ??

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by True_Moose: Ukk. I can understand certain censorships, like some of the more racist bugs bunny episodes made during WW2, but if they're not going to show them, then don't show them. Don't edit out the parts that were there. After all, they're our view on pop culture during that time, it's like revisionist history. When people like Ted Turner start to decide what we can and can't watch, thus begins social engineering. I don't object to him not putting them on because of ratings but honestly. Its kinda scary knowing that him and 5 others control something like 95% of US broadcast. Bah. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

It gets worse.
Somewhere around 96% of Australian media is controlled by two people: Kerry Packer, and Rupert Murdoch. Neither is in any way unbiased, and it seems to me that both of them do things purely to be politically incorrect. As in, they don`t censore racist things, but rather deliberately put them in.
For example, recently there were some rather horrible gang rapes: the media put special emphasis on the fact that the people were lebonese, some smaller papers described them as "Of middle eastern appearance".
Why oh why couldn`t they just sit in between racism and censorship by saying nothing about what country they were from ??

[/)eathKiller]

I can only thank God that these people don't own Bandai...

[Azred]

Doesn't it just make you feel like a little child when you need to be protected from yourself? [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Anyone else think it is a horrible shame that Ted Turner has completely taken control of many of the classic cartoons that we grew up with and has outright banned the showing of many of them due to his desire to be politically correct? While cartoons may or may not be of great historic value, they do represent the differences in our american culture and its changes over the years. I think it is important that cartoons like Bugs Bunny, Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry be preserved unsullied by political correction and censorship, just as we preserve our more serious works of art and entertainment, like GOne with the Wind, the works of Mark Twain and the paintings of the Great artists of history. Im so sad about this dork being such a DH about the things I grew up with as part of my environment. Here are a couple of links. http://looney.toonzone.net/ltcuts/ [URL=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200209\CUL20 020927b.html]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200209\CUL20 020927b.html[/UR L]

Tsk, tsk MagiK. I would think you would extol the right of someone to do what they wish with their property. Michael Jackson can sell the Beatles songs - he owns them, Paul McCartney can't - Michael bought him out. This is a simple property issue - albeit intellectual property, not chattel or real estate. But, the concenpts are the same.

Besides, what kind of lawsuits would TT face if he left the - (and we all must admit the old L-T cartoons are quite offensive in this day and age) - unedited stuff in?

And, if you check these posts, most of the stuff edited out seems violence-oriented, which seems rather silly considering what CSI shows on prime time TV.

Don't get me wrong - I like the originals much better. But, the world has changed since then - admittedly perhaps for the worse. What to do? It's certainly not something you could hang solely on TT's head.

As for the post regarding TT pissing off the Montana cattle ranchers - I must say the only cattle rancher I've ever really agreed with was Howard Lyman. And if you know who this is, you realize what a polemico statement I've just made.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Tsk, tsk MagiK. I would think you would extol the right of someone to do what they wish with their property. Michael Jackson can sell the Beatles songs - he owns them, Paul McCartney can't - Michael bought him out. This is a simple property issue - albeit intellectual property, not chattel or real estate. But, the concenpts are the same. If you truly thought that, then you really have no clue as to who or what kind of person I am. There is a right to ownership and that is fine, however, because you own the work of someone else does not give you the right to twist history, It does not give you the right to censor the cultural evolution of a nation. Yeah he owns them and has the right to not let anyone view them, but I do not believe he has the right to butcher them and then display them as if they were the original work of art. I also think that it is just hunky dory for me to be pissed off at him for doing something I don't like. I have the right to be angry, I just don't have the right to take his "property" away from him. Besides, what kind of lawsuits would TT face if he left the - (and we all must admit the old L-T cartoons are quite offensive in this day and age) - unedited stuff in? That is a stupid assinine flaw with our so called legal system. When a person can sue someone else because they spilled their coffee in there lap while driving, the system needs to be scrapped and redone. And, if you check these posts, most of the stuff edited out seems violence-oriented, which seems rather silly considering what CSI shows on prime time TV. Yeah violence..they cant show the coyote hitting the ground after falling off a cliff or getting blown up by dynamie...I for one am agaisnt the dumbing down of our kids....I have never managed to maim and/or kill anyone out side of a legal military action and yet I watched more violent cartoons in my life than I can name. So did the kids who grew up with me. To my knowledge none of them became mass murderers...or murderers at all....cause and effect does not support this idea that violent cartoons like the Bugs Bunny Road Runner show cause kids to become homicidal maniacs....we would all be dead if that were the case and the younger generation would never have been born. We are tailoring our history and our entertainment for a minority of head cases. I wont even bother to go into the role of parents. Don't get me wrong - I like the originals much better. But, the world has changed since then - admittedly perhaps for the worse. What to do? It's certainly not something you could hang solely on TT's head. All I hang on his head is his (in my opinion) assinine attitude and personality of course I m also pissed off at his comments about my religion as well. There is a reason he has been pushed out of the management of most of the companies he started and or owned. This guy is dangerous to everyone around him. As for the post regarding TT pissing off the Montana cattle ranchers - I must say the only cattle rancher I've ever really agreed with was Howard Lyman. And if you know who this is, you realize what a polemico statement I've just made. So I take it you do not eat beef or use any beef by products? No leather? No geletin? No milk? no dairy at all? Or do you just despise the cattle people on principle while utilizing the product of their labor?

Ummm A thought just came to me...
Timber? Were you trying to paint me as being hypocritical for being pissed off at TT? I think you misread my post if that is the case. He owns this stuff and has the "RIGHT" to do as he pleases, but as I harp on over and over, you have the right to take actions, just be prepared to have consequences from those actions. In this case the reaction is me being pissed off at him. There is no hypocrasy in this.

[Timber Loftis]

Hypocricy is, IMHO, an inescapable part of being a human - or, more importantly, a thinking animal. I think there's a lot in Nietsczhe's (spelling?) "Be the beast lest we become the beast." Therefore, I was simply pointing out what I saw as possibly-conflicting views I have witnessed in your musings on these pages. You explained them rather well, IMHO, in your [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] If you see me as accusing you of hypocricy, know that I didn't mean to, and that even if I did I don't see hypocricy as quite so bad.

As far as Howard Lyman, I *agree* with what he says. I also agree with most everything I read in the Tao Te Ching, yet I am certainly a far cry from being a good Taoist. See, I'm a hypocrit myself. As far as disliking farmers, I grew up around and on farms and have no problem with local private farmers. (In fact I much more respect someone who can look a cow in its big brown eyes, kill it, and eat it than I do someone - the majority of people - who trots down to the local grocery for packaged beef.) The evil that pervades the farming industry, again IMHO, is industrial agri-business - the same evil that is slowly causing the disappearance of "Old McDonald" who, no matter what we like to think, rarely exists at all anymore.

[Bruce The Aussie]

in england i don't think they censored any of those cartoons. i've seen nearly all the ones on "page a" and nver seen the censered versions. yes on cartoon network they have the censored version of tenchie muyo and DBZ (both shows i love) but the looney toons and such all are unsensored.