Do you have a list of these classic, summarily-banished works? In a world where Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is available on mainstream streaming services, it's hard to imagine what atrocities you're thinking of.

They worst of them are referred to as the Censored Eleven, although you can easily find them intact (albeit, with a warning). It's not a complete list - others have been added to the list since, such as WWII cartoons with highly racist anti-Japanese charactures.

An example of one illustrates why the content might be considered problematic: "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs". A contemporary review said, "A satire on Snow White done in blackface, set in modern swing, this is the best in a long time. It's very funny."

The "atrocities" include rampant racism, sexism, and other needless offenses with the intent of comedy. Other media of the time, such as Theodore Geisel/Dr Suess' wartime cartoons, often show up on these lists as well.

In my opinion, it's good that these cartoons are accessible, with content warnings, yet kept out of normal playback rotation. They're relics of an age gone, thankfully, past.

My avatar for the longest time was the Minah Bird in the short Inki and the Minah Bird.

For those who are unaware, the Inki character in this short was a small tribal African child in a grass skirt who spent his days attempting to hunt various animals with a spear. And by African, I mean the blackface depiction with the white lips that is reminiscent of old Al Jolson films.

Now, I didn't remember ANYTHING about this part of the video. I had last watched it when I was a small child. But I enjoyed the part I did remember, namely the Minah bird, because the bird was methodical, walked in step with Mendelssohn's "The Hebrides," and could whup the crap out of anything. So when it came time to choose an avatar during a period of time when people were not using their faces as screen shots, I used this character.

It wasn't until years later that my girlfriend, who happened to be black, asked me why the cartoon bird was my avatar. So I looked it up and... let's just say I discontinued use of the avatar before the topic was broached again.

> And by African, I mean the blackface depiction with the white lips that is reminiscent of old Al Jolson films.

Not trying to excuse anything, but I wonder how much this kind of depiction was an artefact of animation/video production in a black-and-white or early-colour era, much like how old cartoon animals with black fur often wear white gloves, to give hands/mouths some contrast and make movement visible.

Arguably, even "modern" cameras are apparently not designed with noncaucasian skintones in mind, something interest groups do not tire to bring up.

> I wonder how much this kind of depiction was an artefact of animation/video production in a black-and-white or early-colour era

Zero. Nada, Nothing.

The history of blackface begins with stage and musical performances "aping" actual black musicians and banjo players [1].

There wasn't a lot of film work happening in 1848 . . .

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show

Black Face is older then cameras. And as far as modern cameras go, with my limited experience in digital photo post processing, I'd say that the skin tone issue might have something to do with White Balancing. This is tricky in landscapes already, because not everybody carries normal grey cards with them (some people do apparently). And I know from people that shoot a lot more portraits that getting skin tones is always tricky.

Not saying it isn't related to cameras, so. But if it is, I'd suspect it to be much more of an issue with in-camera created JPEGs, RAW files don't do white balancing (at least all my Nikons don't). I have zero clue how dedicated video cameras work, so...

There's a ton of cartoons from the era clearly blackface.

However, to your point, even recent photographs in color and black and white depict the tonal contrast one could imagine inspiring the cartoon character in question:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3e50441087256791f079ff...

https://get.pxhere.com/photo/black-and-white-people-white-ph...

Until you get to the name Inki... tips their hand a bit.

> Arguably, even "modern" cameras are apparently not designed with noncaucasian skintones in mind, something interest groups do not tire to bring up.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you give an example of why you think that?

Not so long ago, film processes and machines were optimized and calibrated for reference images of only white faces[1]. Darker-skinned people often found their skin tones were badly reproduced. The analogous thing happened again in digital processes, up to and including AI image processing trained on datasets where white skin is overrepresented. The industry's awareness of this issue is now pretty high. I don't know if the issue is solved in practice on current-gen cameras/phones/software or not. Anyone have latest info?

[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363517842/for-decades-kodak-s...

That's interesting, I hadn't really thought of it that way.

I wonder if that's why the first colour grading exercise in the training material for BMD DaVinci Resolve is an excerpt from a documentary about rhinos, where you need to balance a reasonably clean shot of a white woman, a gorgeous but fairly tricky shot of a black man (in profile, strong sunlight on his nose, eyes and cheek, rest in deep shadow), and a couple of mid and long shots of black gamekeepers walking around.

There's a lot to get right and a lot to get wrong, and you can end up making everyone look a pretty sickly colour.

Oof, I was hoping you weren't talking and the black bird that did the little hop thing I remember from the cartoons. You were. I didn't remember and probably didn't understand the context of it at the time.

I don't think the show is necessarily THAT offensive, for what it's worth. Yes, the depiction of the child's physical appearance is stereotypical of the era (the child's name is problematic too), but the story being told is that of a young child from a hunting community who is learning to hunt by terrorizing insects with his spear until he runs across something (a lion with false teeth) that makes HIM the prey. The lion is just unlucky because he keeps running into the Minah bird whenever he's actually got the child in his grasp.

What's sad about the racist aspect of the show is that the depiction of a child at play in this show totally mirrors the behavior of children when they get a bug catching net. It's a Merrie Melodie, so there's no speech or inner monologue that is forced upon all children's shows day. Just a kid being a kid.

The story is alright. The way they drew the character, definitely not alright. And you know the lovely associations racists make between black people and spears.

Could have been a cute animation about a kid biting off more than they could chew. And a hapless lion and a bird that takes not shit. It's a shame they had to shove the nastiness in there.

> blackface depiction with the white lips

Lips of lighter tone than skin are not necessarily blackface.

Pale lips (black and white):

https://get.pxhere.com/photo/black-and-white-people-white-ph...

Pale lips (color):

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3e50441087256791f079ff...

On the other hand, "Inky" isn't great...

Here's a good example. I rememeber seeing this back in the 90's when they would have weekend "mini-Cons" in L.A. at places like the Ambassador Hotel for animation and Anime fans. They had to project it on 16mm film.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6q8qen

The "Scat" version of Nagasaki was provided by Leo "Zoot" Watson: https://looneytunes.fandom.com/wiki/Leo_Watson

Even on all known re-releases, we know that some Tom and Jerry episodes have been altered. And 2 episodes, even in their "complete set," are completely absent.

And that is, IMHO, totally fine. We have Tom & Jerry DVD at home, bought years ago for the kids. I loved Tom and Jerry as a kid, the kids loved stuff like Willy E. Coyote, so I thought the DVD set was a good idea. Oh dear, that was the first time I realized that as kid I never saw the old episodes...

Those are good in a historical context to show just how racist cartoons can be, but certainly not for entertainment. Same goes for the early Tintin comics, especially those set in colonial Africa have serious racist undertones. Something even the author acknowledged. And those undertones are completely (?) absent from the later ones. Just shows how subversive racism can be when it is part of everyday culture, and that even non racist people fall prey to using those racist stereotypes in their work. The same goes for sexism and any other kind of systematic discrimination.

For a home release, I get it... and at the same time, I don't.

I'd like to quote the philosopher George Santayana, who I don't agree with that much but certainly agree with on this quote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

If we, to use the expression, whitewash all that happened in the past... we'll forget how terrible a place it used to be. So, I would agree that Tom and Jerry cartoons might not belong in a home audience - but that doesn't mean Warner should be incapable of, saying, releasing a true "for collectors" limited-release version of all the unedited shorts with a warning ahead of time.

Ohhhh nooooo not a cartoon Asian man - we need to erase this from history.

Songs of the south

Any Tom and Jerry episode involving Mammy Two Shoes

A few WW2 era animations, Hitler-Donald duck springs to mind.

“Song of the South” is a Disney film and the first film to mix live action with animation. One might think with that historic meaning, it would be preserved.

But it’s impossible to find. Even eBay has banned sale of the DVD.

Fortunately I have a copy my father ripped to DVD from some unknown source sometime in the 90s. It’s poor quality.

If you look into it, Disney (because, well... money, not any actual guilt) actually sold VHS tapes from the 90s to the early 00s in many countries except the US. Many "bootleg" copies originate from them.

You can find the VHS on eBay for ~$40-$50 from the UK.

Also “ The Princess and the Frog “ and “ Mary Poppins “ (1964)

What about them? The Princess and the Frog is from 2009.

There’s many earlier versions of that story ex: “The Frog (1908)”

But I don’t know which is being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_Prince

Sure. But the one titled The Princess and the Frog is 2009.

Yea, but it was a common way to describe the story before Disney titled their movie that way.

So, I wasn’t sure if they where suggesting a VHS version of that 2009 movie existed, making reference to the meme around the 2009 movie being a throwback, or just something else.

Interesting. I guess VHS is the low-quality source of my DVD rip.

Another thing you can look into, here's the secret words: Canción del sur.

The film went public domain in Spain. And surprise, there's some boutique resellers in Spain who do DVDs and Blu-rays... and add language tracks...

https://www.amazon.com/Song-South-Blu-Ray-Reg-Spain/dp/B09BD...

Thanks!!

I mean, it's available right here: https://archive.org/details/SongOfTheSouthHD

But also worth noting that it _wasn't_ the first to mix live action with animation. It had been used in shorts and experiments all the way back to 1900, but for a full-length film, Warner Bros. released You Ought to Be in Pictures in 1940. And The Three Cabelleros beat it by nearly two years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRIBUlP3GC4

More on that history here: https://www.motionpictures.org/2013/07/from-gene-kelly-to-th...

eBay banning the sale of the DVD is extremely dystopian

Why is it an issue for eBay to ban it when there's already a list of prohibited categories of items?

It's easy enough to download a copy of it if you're interested in banned items.

Because it's a value judgement. It's one thing to say "we don't deal in porn and guns" but to then pick specific media they do deal in and say "oh and also this one" imparts the kind of fine-grained value judgement that it's inappropriate for an eCommerce platform to be making.

I see your point, but there's also value judgements with other categories. How is an "adult" or "pornography" item defined?

Personally, I don't have an issue with a business choosing to ban or allow items as it's their platform and their business choice. If they choose to not sell any lithium batteries due to their flammable nature, then that would also be acceptable and not in my mind dystopian. There's arguably some risk in being involved with sending potentially offensive media through the mail.

it's a private company

Is there any more dystopian than Google editing Frank Zappa’s track listings because of a single track?

> Any Tom and Jerry episode involving Mammy Two Shoes

Since I watched Tom and Jerry cartoons many, many times, I just looked up who this is (although I kinda had inferred it, there aren't that many characters in Tom and Jerry :)) and why she's a problem.

Curiously, I always thought she was the owner of the house, so any racist undertones were totally lost on me (note that I'm not American). (I did get that they were quite sexist, no man doing housework ever).

I don't deny the racist intent, but it's funny how one needs the cultural context to get that. I hope in a few decades it will be lost on every kid.

Mammy was lost on pretty much every kid, even in America. Her relevance resurfaced when 'problematic' became part of the common nomenclature to describe such caricatures. If she was, as we say, problematic, there would've been a helluva lot more racist kids running around, probably.

>> If she was, as we say, problematic, there would've been a helluva lot more racist kids running around, probably.

That's not how those things work. And from the outside looking in, there seem to be quite a few racists in the age group that crew up with Tom and Jerry...

Oh please.

Pretty much all these old tropes that we today consider stereotypes about who is at what station in life, and what what kinds of businesses and activities various races and nationalities engage in are completely and totally irrelevant in an age where the help may be any color, the laundromat could be run by anybody, the banker's religion is a toss up and the immigrant tradesman could be from almost any corner of the earth. Without the day to day reality of a living in a mostly racially/ethnically segregated (by law or by cultural norm, doesn't really matter) for these tropes to reinforce they are meaningless as stereotypes. Their only use is for people like you to earn a few quick social credit points taking a stand against.

If Mammy Two Shoes is a racist stereotype and the cone-hatted slitty-eyed "Ching Chong Chinaman" is a racist stereotype (they are, at that) then so are all the bagpipe-playing violent ginger Scotsmen, and all the slow-witted straw-chewing Irishmen, or indeed the "dumb Southerner" stereotypes.

I mean here's the problem:

You don't actually even really see her. Mammy appears for like 5-10 seconds in a handful of episodes and all she does is hit Tom or tell him to catch that mouse. At best, as a kid, you could inference that she's mean to Tom and hits him for not catching Jerry. That's literally it. If that's enough to cause people to go into a tirade of unabashed racism, them yeah, America is absolutely fucked and throttled.

But racism today is so much more constrained and things are so much better now that the fact that you think this is problem today is quite frankly offensive.

> Curiously, I always thought she was the owner of the house...

Same here. I always thought she was the "mom" of the house. It wasn't until I was an adult that I had enough context to understand the undertones.

forbidding/removing/censoring bad things eventually leads to people forgetting the understanding of why it was considered bad