The Secret of Kells That Should’ve Been Kept
The nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards have been announced, and while most were expected, the one sore thumb that stood out was a previously little known – at least in the United States – Irish/Belgian/French film called The Secret of Kells. It is notable for apparently edging out Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs for the nomination. It is also notable for the fact that it hasn’t been released yet United States, which is usually a requirement.
All you need to say to me is “new animated movie”, and I’m going to take an interest. Add “French” to the pot and I become really interested – much to do with my borderline francophilia, and for the mere existence of Gobelins School of Image, which regularly produces stunning animated shorts for the yearly Annecy International Animated Film Festival.
So I’m watching the trailer, marveling at the fluid animation and the non-traditional animation style, which literally looks like a picture book come to life.
Then, about 32 seconds in, I find something else notable about Kells.
Enter Brother Assoua. Not to be outdone by Japan, or most recently Australia, the film – made in Ireland – throws a nice blackface caricature my way. Almost as if to spite me. I was interested. I was really interested. Why the hell did that have to happen?
I wouldn’t have batted an eye if there were no people of color in the film, because I’m used to it. Had I even thought about it, I could’ve justified it through the fact that there were not many – if any – dark-skinned people in medieval Ireland. Pretty sure there aren’t many now. I could’ve enjoyed the movie – provided the plot was any good – with no second thoughts.
But no. No.
Here’s my open inquiry to the nations of the world. What part of the message – that blackface is fucking offensive – is getting lost in translation? And since they speak English in Australia and Ireland, thereby nullifying the language barrier as an excuse, is it a matter of them just not giving a damn? Perhaps it is a thumb at the nose of so-called “political correctness” – a favored buzz word for people to criticize as justification for doing socially irresponsible things.
With regards to Kells, there is a lot of room for stylistic interpretation of different ethnicities. Darker skin, thicker lips? Par for the course. No problem. But bright red lips that occupy a third of Assoua’s face leave no room for interpretation.
Undoubtedly someone else – with more clout or recognition – will raise this issue again, as The Secret of Kells climbs its way to mainstream attention. At that point I hope creator Tomm Moore will have some sort of acceptable justification for such objectionable art direction.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about all of this is that The Secret of Kells looks to be a gorgeously well-produced animated film.
Very well said and I agree with you. I’ve posted anonymously because I work for someone, shall we say, ‘involved’ in the film (white, of course, and apparently oblivious to the fact that this is offensive).
Honestly oblivious? Because I could almost forgive that. I just find it hard to believe that anyone could be unaware that it’s offensive in our age of mass information.
And what’s the obsession with exaggerating Africanesque features? I mean, in light of the fact that the other characters don’t HAVE lips AT ALL, and are as pale as the background to my website, it wouldn’t take much to let us know that Assoua was of some African origin.
Could you provide any further insight?
I refuse to believe the artists of this film are uneducated about the history of black minstral depictions in art. It really calls into question the character design.
Yeah I’m sure they’re not. Instead they’re making excuses about how it’s just artistic license or how the social dynamics in Europe are different and so it doesn’t carry the same meaning as it would in the U.S. Some high and mighty justification for what they know to be inappropriate.
This movie is beautifully made, though I am not particularly engaged by religious iconography, and I am giving this opinion from the standpoint of a person in a pretty racist area of the USA and who knows racism when he sees it, and I know you can be racist even if you don’t want to be, like me, but I digress…
The Swastika I didn’t even find any problem with, though some ignorant or illogical people who wish to hand over any symbol of any peaceful movement to any thief of said symbols may have such a problem, and with all the love I’ve got for Buddhism I have to say taking the symbol back is essential…
But check out my little website for a different shot than is on here, plus a poll on whether the picture there is racist or not. When I saw this image, where the dudes mouth is shut and his lips and nose are literally almost encompassing his entire face and are insanely red like clown makeup, well it wasn’t a big leap to the logical conclusion, it’s purely racist, at the deepest level…
I can’t believe people either don’t notice or don’t care.. I am NOT a politically correct person and I actually do care, because this is a CHILDREN’S MOVIE..
click my name for the website, it’s no ads just a free site to show the most racist picture….
As an Irish guy abroad, I would love to be able to show this movie to people and say, "look, we can actually do things!" But because of this I have to hold my tongue.
What excuse do they have? Cultural difference isn't really an excuse for anyone over the age of twelve. Even presuming that these artists have existed in a cultural vacuum, far removed from a long established history of racial degradation, would that allow them create one anew.
As you say there is a lot of room for interpretation of various ethnic characteristics, and it's not an entirely bad design, but those lips are unforgivable. Stylised features are one thing, but where in real life have the animators found inspiration for those?
Thanks for your input, Jont. You raise a good point. They were exposed to enough to racial stereotypes to be able to come up with such an image, so we can't assume that they were somehow selectively unaware of the meanings associated with it. So I wonder, do they just not care, or do they think it's funny?
Come on guys, this is ridiculous. EVERYONE in the movie is a caricature. There are way bigger things to get offended over than this, especially when the movie itself isn't trying to be racist in any way, nor are any of these characters (including the African guy) being portrayed as unintelligent or inferior. Isn't that what's most important?
"Everyone in the movie is a caricature"
Even if that were true, what you don't understand is that this particular caricature has a history – one associated with the shaming and invalidation of the black aesthetic. Look up "blackface" for a better understanding, and you'll find that because African-Americans were not allowed in films, white actors painted their faces pitch black with bright red lips and then acted like buffoons – their interpretations of how black people acted, or a way of presenting black people mockingly for white people's amusement.
It is not just about caricature but about how black people have been represented historically in the media, and it has almost always been bad.
In this case, it is about knowing better. It is well established that this particular "caricature" as you call it, is symbolic of a painful past for African-Americans, and to use it NOW is to either be woefully ignorant of that history, or to plainly make a statement that you don't give a fuck about it.
If they wanted to make a caricature who happened to be African, that's fine, but as I said:
"There is a lot of room for stylistic interpretation of different ethnicities. Darker skin, thicker lips? Par for the course. No problem. But bright red lips that occupy a third of Assoua’s face leave no room for interpretation."
This image specifically invokes the blackface tradition. It is not merely a caricature.
"Even if that were true, what you don't understand is that this particular caricature has a history – one associated with the shaming and invalidation of the black aesthetic. Look up "blackface" for a better understanding, and you'll find that because African-Americans were not allowed in films, white actors painted their faces pitch black with bright red lips and then acted like buffoons – their interpretations of how black people acted, or a way of presenting black people mockingly for white people's amusement. "
Which makes it a bit ironic…. during those same days in America, the Irish were mocked and joked about for mainstream amusement, also. Yes, the Irish were prejudiced against just like blacks. People would get right up on the stage and mock the hell at the Irish's expense.
However, that prejudice did diminish much more quickly than those towards blacks.. :
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma04/wood/ykid/irish….
This will probably be the last time I respond. Look around at other posts on my site – specifically those tagged with "white" or "whiteness". I am well aware of how the Irish were treated in America, and no, it was never the equivalent to the African-American experience. The Irish were never slaves, and they were relatively quickly enrolled into the construct known as "whiteness", which allowed them to be naturalized as citizens.
They were able to trade their second-class status as Irish, which they had in common with Reconstruction era black people, and just be white Americans with all the rights and privileges that come with it – something that black people still do not have in this country.
But yes, you're right about one thing. It is ironic, that people who were once treated like shit would then turn around and do the same to others. But then, it happens all the time. Capitalism encourages hierarchy and oppression for the sake of advantage or profit. It's built into the very structure of our society and culture.
Whoa.. I never said the Irish actually went through what African Americans did.
I was merely pointing out the prejudices against both during the time "black face" came around. And the irony of it all.
There is so much more I could say on this matter, about the "neutrality" or "normativity" of whiteness, and how the black aesthetic does not fit within the Western beauty standard. That is to say that those features commonly associated with darker people are seen as ugly, inferior, or in the case of blackface, something to laugh at.
Can you even imagine what that feels like? Based on your willingness to dismiss this issue, I would guess not.
That's just it though- the Western World. The Western World is predominantly white and has been for centuries! Each Western country has their own cultural identity that they're all comfortable with and scared of losing. As does any other non-Western country.
It's generally because of our genes and upbringing that contribute to what we prefer in life. And, most people tend to prefer people that are just like them. (I remember reading about in psychology.)
I did attempt some research on the internet about this sort of thing. I came across a forum where someone wrote: "Why do Nigerians think white people are ugly?"
Again, it's just the culture. And the Western world is predominantly made up of white cultures- although that is changing…
However, it is morally wrong to mock those that are different; to make them feel ashamed of who they are.
Though, I have watched black shows where the white character (if there is one) is incredibly dimwitted (Fresh Prince, Family Matters).
To be honest, it works on both sides…
This is just plain false. What you came across on some random forum is in no way indicative of the larger reality. In most African countries, and throughout the world, the white aesthetic is seen as superior. I could tell you about a friend of mine – Irish girl – who is regularly in Africa and reports on how the local men praise her as having a white woman's beauty and an African girl's sensibilities – the "best of both worlds", as it were.
So no, it does not "work on both sides". Furthermore, as the white aesthetic dominates the commercial world, it only becomes more entrenched and regarded as the standard by which all others should be judged.
Look anywhere. Why do you figure that Japanese animation characters are modeled with white features, especially blonde hair and blue eyes? Why do you figure that, in general, those in India with the highest status tend to have the lightest skin and the most European features. Why do you figure that status in the Caribbean and South American corresponds directly to skin color, with white or "mulatto" people having higher status than darker people.
I really don't think you're in a position to debate this with me, as clearly you are unaware of how this dynamic plays out on a global scale. I'm responding to you only to inform others who may be interested in this. You – and anyone else who thinks like you – should do some more research before weighing in.
What's plain false? Oh, do tell. Oh mighty on his high chair in the blogging world.
I was merely trying to bring about a -researched- idea as to why "white aesthetics" are more regarded in a WESTERN country. I think you failed to miss the point about genetics and psychology and preference of the predominate race in the WESTERN CULTURE.
As for people with lighter skin in different cultures having a higher status… Have you failed to remember that having lighter skin meant that you did not work outside (Western countries, Asian, and South American)? That in certain cultures, those that had darker skins were seen as poor because they had to work out in the fields to make a living. Did you not ever learn that? Do you not think that those same attitudes might have happened to carry over throughout the years? that they're still believed?
I think it's safe to say that those attitudes changed somewhat in the States. Now, everyone wants to be DARKER to the point of skin cancer; as I have seen living on an island barrier in the South.
The western world is changing though. That film may prove against it, but that's a small group of people who made a huge, insensitive mistake. While still few, I have been seeing more and more black people put up on the billboards and on magazine covers and ect in some form of beauty. Why don't you try and help bring about these changes instead of complaining? (That is, if you aren't..)
It seems too easy these days to be able to blog about issues instead of actually attempting to solve those problems.
While I'm not denying that I should do more research on the matter; I think it's obvious that you are in need of it, too.
You know what? We're both right. HOWEVER, you failed to realize/remember that lighter skin was attributed to being wealthy and of noble class; as in they weren't working away in the great outdoors for the sun to darken their skin. Therefore, darker skin in those cultures was attributed to being poor and inferior. Hence, it was NOT contributed by interference of Europeans, since it was the same custom in Asian cultures (like Japan).
You do remember that Japan kept itself isolated from the rest of the world, too, right? When it finally did open it's doors to trade, the Western world EXPLODED with Japanese trend. Women were wearing kimonos, and artists were greatly affected by the flat, wood-block art of Japan. Oh look, the Western World being influenced by a different race! Not to mention, in the early 1900's, during Art Deco, western artists were even being influenced by African idealizations of beauty (such as long necks). Amedeo Modigliani was one of these artists. But, I'm sure you know all this already as you're such a smart fellow.
This discussion is pretty broad. on a global scale. Whereas Western culture may have the stronger influence, keep in mind, that we're still influenced by many other cultures and their ideals and standards of beauty (even if that gets implemented into our own).
I haven't forgotten the British and French occupations of Africa and India (British). Though, I did fail to remember that they're occupation reflected being white meant having power. That their involvement may have created a change in the beauty and superior standards of those cultures (as is mentioned in the link below).
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/2042
Though, again, ideals of beauty are based primarily on biological factors, but can be affected culturally.
There's other research that I looked through, but that was a good example.
You do have some good points, and I think I failed to gather what you were really trying to say. I looked at it more scientifically at first…
All in all, we both need to do more research into the matter as you failed to remember contributing cultural factors.
(Sorry if this kind of jumps around, but one thing leads to another..)
Hey…I am so glad, that someone posted something about this mess! This is utterly ridiculous in this age to have something so blatantly racist and offensive. Anyone who has seen or previewed this film and saw "Brother Assoua" and had no objection is obviously in need of an ethics class. I'm pissed to say the least..I thought I was going to enjoy a quiet evening, watching movies with my children; now I have to send out a bunch of emails to the creeps who put this crap out..come on now..it's 2010..
Also..the online images of Brother Assoua do not display the true character…There are "Huge Bright Red, Lips" on my TV screen…hmmm. what's up with that? appears like a play down to me.
This is idiotic. Most of the posts here attribute the 'racism' in the caricature to history, but you're never going to move society forward if you have to constantly stop and trim out anything that could be offensive because of what once was. Sensitivity is one thing, but we're at the point where now where comedy is required to center around white males, preferably southern. Because, you know, a white person can't possibly be white and understand a single thing about poverty or hardships.
I mean hey, we're all online, we can all post and comment regardless of, well, everything identifying about ourselves. But now Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd are accepted and expected caricatures, yet any Looney Tunes cartoon with any other race in it is either banned, or comes with a warning in front of it. And I'll certainly admit that some things are outright racist ('Japs – free'), but there's no equality in being selective about our funny people doing funny things.
Oh, okay, well now that you've cleared that all up for me, I can move on with my life and not be concerned about such things. Thanks!
Good thing white people are around to set us straight on just how we should react to racism. Phew!
You clearly have zero knowledge about this subject, so your comment really has no bearing on the discussion. There is nothing inherently demonized or ridiculed or dehumanized within or around "whiteness" or white people, so any arguments about "white caricatures" is wholly irrelevant. Elmer Fudd is not a "white caricature", it is simply a cartoon character; there is no particular person or group of people or culture that is being affronted by his existence.
It is incredible to me how white people (or ignorant apologist PoC) try to bring any discussions of racism back to how it relates to white people, when white people do not at all experience discrimination in any meaningful way. There simply is no comparison to be made between cartoon blackface and a "white" cartoon character – when the latter actually doesn't really exist. They are merely the default cartoon characters, which in itself is a statement.
Glad to know that I can't have an opinion on racially identifiable caricatures because I'm white ; )
I don't ever feel like I have enough knowledge of the subject, but are you really going to tell me that I know nothing about discrimination?
I'm from the south of the US, and as you've probably read online once or twice, everyone in the South is a filthy redneck. We're all horribly racist, homophobic, we eat alligator and shoot animals and drink beer all day for fun, all while clinging to guns and religion and whatnot. Not only that, it's politically correct ignorance and stereotyping. Not that I'm accusing you of any of this, but you're going to tell me that you have a monopoly on being discriminated against?
Nothing inherently ridiculed about 'whiteness'? So it's okay if it's a particular trait being ridiculed? Like the twinkie obsessed fat kid, the raging online gamer, the socially awkward nerd, the elitist frat boy? Or are you telling me that each of those stereotypes are 100% accurate, with no exaggeration, and it's okay because they're traits that are exploited and exaggerated, as long as they're not skin color? Last I checked, 'you're so white' wasn't a compliment.
Elmer Fudd isn't an exaggeration of the idiot hunter? I like how you didn't even touch Yosemite Sam. Yeah, these are specifically WHITE stereotypes. How can you even argue that?
Cartooning itself is the exaggeration of certain physical features. Look at that clip, with Mario there sporting the massive nose and mustache, or tiny squinty asian grandpa. Man that guy is short.
No matter how you dress it up, you're insisting that one physical attribute is off limits for caricaturization, and us ignorant white people just don't understand why. I mean, I'm not supposed to read your blog any differently because you're black, right? Isn't that equality?
Not going to argue with you that blackface was terrible, but, Brother Assoua's lips don't look red to me in that image or the trailer, are they more red in the movie itself? I can't remember. I just see big lips. Just like I see big ears, big noses, big beards, big mustaches, etc.
Well, thanks for at least editing your comment and leaving a real reply.
Everyone's entitled to an "opinion", but when it comes to how racial caricatures affect people in groups with a history of ridicule, dehumanization, and disenfranchisement – no, really, white people tend not to "get it".
As for the stereotypes against Southerners, sorry, but I can't really empathize. Because beyond causing some hurt feelings and, indeed, reducing a range of people to characteristics of a few (never heard of the eating alligator one), it has no lasting social impact. Also, what's particularly interesting about those stereotypes is that they're created and maintained by other white people. So again, who is at fault? Perhaps "white" southerners should try to start distancing themselves from whiteness, then.
Anyway, the exaggeration of the idiot hunter? What the hell is that? Again, I point you towards my argument about social impact. There is no group of hunters who have been historically, or are currently being disenfranchised by these "stereotypes" – it has ZERO impact, and does not evoke any long history of pain and alienation.
I didn't "touch" Yosemite Sam, because the same argument applies. Who is hurt by that character? Is there a red-haired dixie fellow somewhere who is all broken up inside everytime he watches Bugs Bunny? I seriously doubt that. The two things just aren't comparable.
And your argument about "cartooning itself is an exaggeration" doesn't hold water. Caricatures in themselves are fine, but those that – again – evoke a certain history are not acceptable. There are – as I argue in my post – many ways to cariacaturize "black" characters without turning to the blackface model. As for the "squinty Asian grandpa" – I take great issue with that as well, along with the countless other instances of yellowface prevalent throughout American media culture. I don't mention those things here because they're not relevant to The Secret of Kells.
Which brings me back to why you're even arguing with me in the first place. Even if we were to agree that Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd are painful stereotypes – and really, give me a break – does that somehow justify the use of blackface caricatures in this movie? This is what I meant when I said that white people always want to bring it back to themselves, as if they truly are the center of the universe.
Guess you didn't see The Water Boy, then.
Can't see a single thing that's relevant about stereotypes being maintained by other white people. Unless that makes them more true? Guess that fits with your perception that situations can't be 'gotten' across races. All that means is that ANYONE can maintain this stereotype. And it's encouraged by society.
And no, there's not. Why is that? Texans are openly mocked and thought of as inferior all over the country, same with conservatives, Catholics… What variables make that different? What history of pain and alienation did YOU suffer? Do you hate blackface because you were mocked by minstrels? What makes you different from me? What makes you different from a white guy?
Is it society itself? Okay, that needs to be changed. So now what? Censor cartoons? Treat one race different than all the others? You believe affirmative action is the answer? Fight one imbalance with another?
So what is it that you want? For the color of your skin to be treated blindly, or for us whiteys to tread lightly for something that we never did? (sorry, I mean the current batch of whites out there. Weird how I read that and felt like I was claiming that all whites in history were innocent, obviously they weren't, but why does 'we' feel like it encompasses all whites ever? Blech, how generalizing) Or are you lumping me in with those minstrels because I'm white? Look what you keep writing. This is fine expect for-, this if fine, but- You want exceptions? You want to be treated differently? From who, for what?
If the water boy was about a black male who acted identically, that movie wouldn't have been made.
Are you serious? Have you never been on any sort of political site ever? Or do you just agree with all the comments and believe they're fact, not generalizations and stereotypes? Do Texans give a damn? Doesn't seem to me like they do (sorry, I'm not Texan). So overt discrimination is better than echo discrimination, because you care and they don't?
On a more general note, being expected to act one way, being wired to act another way, yeah, we all go through it.
Cartoons caricature EVERYONE, is what I'm saying. This isn't the n-word, this is large lips on a large man. Not going to touch that one, though, I feel uncomfortable when black people use that work, too.
And what's our threshold? Should we always avoid controversy? We should be able to laugh at ourselves, it's the greatest power we have.
Heh, not trying to 'win' your blog or anything. Thanks, I'll have to check it out.
I loved this film.But I do think,the black character was not appropriate.The big size,lips,ettc.not in good taste.Ireland is a lovely country.But from my firsthand observation,they are very prejudiced,even towards their own people.I love Ireland,am Irish,But it have seen a darkside that frightens me sometimes.They should have more respect.
Thank you for turning God knows how many people off of a beautiful movie for a guy's lips.
I truly wish he'd reply "You're very welcome!" because I was aghast when I first saw the caricature of Brother "Ass"'s face. I watched five more minutes in astonishment and then turned it off. I don't care how "beautiful" a movie is; if it has anything like this it's despicable! I only found this post because I was so astonished that I had to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Now I'm going to search to make sure the issue hasn't been drowned out by the ignorant masses…
I know this is an old post, but I’ve just seen the movie. I couldn’t believe it when I saw Brother Assoua. My jaw dropped. It makes me sad because the rest of the movie is so beautifully done, and I’d really love it otherwise. I’m of Irish descent, and the mythology woven into the story (and the Celtic-design visuals) were really meaningful to me. So what the hell were they thinking?!
By the way, there are some white people who do experience genuine oppression, but not in the asinine way that other (white) commenters were arguing. I’m talking about women, gay people, transgendered people, disabled people. I’m a feminist, which is how I learned to understand the systems of oppression at work and how I came to examine my own white privilege. It’s embarrassing and shameful to read the comments of other white people who, as you said, don’t get it (or more accurately, they refuse to get it). I can’t understand firsthand what it’s like to live as a POC, but I can sure do my best to educate myself and try not to be part of the problem. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Oh, and as far as your mentioning of some Japanese anime having blonds with blue eyes.. Well, I've often wondered that, too.. especially when they have a Japanese name.. Not to mention all the characters in various animes with green, blue, pink, purple, orange, red, gray, white, brown, black, magenta, turquoise, etc hair colors. Along with pink, red, blue, yellow, gray, orange, brown, green, orange, black, violet, etc eye color. There's clearly white interference in this! I mean, I can't even began to tell you how many whites I see with naturally green hair and pink eyes (referring to the iris, of course)! IT"S ASTOUNDING!!
Pretty much everything you're saying above is off topic. And again, some of it is just plain wrong. I didn't "fail to realize" anything – what you're saying about wealth/class is not some independent phenomenon, it is a direct result of what I'm saying about race and perceptions thereof. The darker people I'm talking about are not such because of "being out in the sun", but because of their heritage, usually indicative of some closer proximity to Africa.
It is true in the case of the Caribbean and South American "mulattoes", and of peoples of the Indus valley versus the European people of the north – again, proximity to Africa usually means darker. Southeast Asians vs. East Asians, same deal.
And what does Japan influencing the west have to do with this conversation at all? Nothing. I mentioned Japan only for its near-worship of European features; if you'll remember, our conversation was about the perceived superiority of the white standard, not European influence in general.
Everything I'm talking about is "cultural factors" – those, however, often being responses to perceived biological realities. Again, I didn't forget anything. Sparse on specific details? Sure, because I'm not trying to write you a paper here. But lacking anything in getting my point across? Not a bit.
And I'm not even about to read some random paper by some student at Bryn Mawr, a school of vapid know-it-all white liberals.
I caught one term at a glance, though: "golden ratio". Leave it to a Westerner to try to quantify beauty mathematically, again, as if there is a specific standard for something so abstract and subjective.
Conveniently I'm sure that a greater proportion of Europeans meet whatever "golden rule" that that person is setting about beauty. It's just a bunch of high-minded pedantics to justify ethnocentric views.
"No no no, this can't be argued, it's MATH!"
Yeah? Well 1+1 = 2 nuts in your mouth. Fuck outta here with that shit.
I just remembered that I posted something on the "nature" of beauty some time ago, and it gets my point across with a little more…grace.
http://godheval.net/philosophy/perception-of-valu...
This seems to be something you're incapable of understanding, or perhaps just unwilling. Water boy? Seriously? If that character were any other ethnicity, would it have changed the story at all? Nope. There is nothing explicitly "white" about that character.
And again, I ask, for all the "open mockery" of Texans and conservatives or whatever you're claiming (where's your evidence?), how does that AFFECT Texans or conservatives? Do Texans really give a damn what anyone else around the country thinks about them? Does that "discrimination" affect their ability to do ANYTHING in life?
As for "what history of pain and alienation" have I suffered…what do you want, my life story? Do you figure that because this isn't the 60s or earlier that I haven't really experienced it personally? Even if I hadn't, the piece you don't seem to get is the historicity of it – you underestimate things like how history continues to echo into the present, how even if I was never directly discriminated against, such discrimination in general forms a context in which I exist and determines how others perceive me, and how I need to carry myself on a daily basis. It is so complex that I would have to recommend you some books to read, because I can't explain it all here.
And no, it's not about censoring cartoons, it's about the creators making more respectful design choices. Are you one of those people who would argue "Well, black people say the n-word all the time, so why can't I say it?" or "If they don't want us to say it, they shouldn't either" ? At some point it becomes an issue of simple respect.
It's not about "political correctness", or "free speech", it's about acknowledging, hey, I see that that word hurts you when I say it, or that that image evokes a painful history, and I'm going to respect you enough not to use it. It's as simple as that.
At the point when even one person makes a serious argument for the social effect of Elmer Fudd or Water Boy or Yosemite Sam on any group of people, then the creators of such things should listen. Thing is, beyond you bringing it up for the sake of being contrary, I don't think anyone really cares.
You want to better understand? Check out this video; set aside an hour to watch it straight through or don't bother. It's up to you. Are you here to argue with me, or are you here to better understand? If the former, I'm really not interested. If the latter, definitely check out the video:
http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?pread...
Semi-relevant note: The fellow in the video is a white southerner, so for his sake alone, I'm the last person who will assume the worst about white southerners.
You totally lost all credibility around this point.
Does that mean you won’t be coming back? Blast!