Recently John K put up a terrific blog post where he argued that classic cartoon caricatures of indians were a natural exaggeration of the way indians really looked, and he put up several pictures of real indians to prove his point. It was a terrific article and if you missed it you should go back to John's site and read it.
I have to admit that Sitting Bull certainly looked like the old caricatures, especially the ones with big noses, but were noses like that really common among the indians?
[By the way, notice that Sitting Bull's eyes are top and bottom bracketed, and close together, which makes the nose seem even bigger. I've seen those eyes before, but where? Maybe in cartoons, where they were used even on white people. If this picture is responsible for that, then this might be one of the most influential photos in the history of cartooning!]
I'm no expert on native-American noses, but to judge from John's photos, lots of other indians had noses that were only slightly bigger than whites'. It's a small thing to argue about I know, but I'm in a nit-pickey mood so this disagreement finds itself on this page. John thinks I'm blind.
For me it doesn't matter much if big noses were common, or just limited to Sitting Bull and his relatives. The caricature works and is funny. I am glad that I got to thinking about this because it started me thinking about funny indian caricatures in general.
My question is, why is it common for indian caricatures to be wide-eyed, smiling, and full of energy? No doubt some indians must have been like that, but the ones you see in photos tend to be earnest and serious. The best photos of American Indians are among the masterpieces of 19th Century photography.
I have a theory about where the wide-eyed, fun-loving look came from. I'll bet cartoonists were consciously or unconsciously combining the indian look with what they thought black swing musicians looked like. Maybe the swing era conspicuously used a lot of tom-tom rhythms, so indians came to be associated with it. Compare the smiling wide-eyed indian above (the color picture) to Louis Jordan (the black & white photo).
Logically it doesn't make any sense to combine people who are so different, and yet the synthesis works like a charm. You can't argue with what works. Maybe this is one of the secrets of good caricature: combine elements that intuitively fit, logic be damned!
One of my all-time favorite indian caricatures is the wide-angled, copper-colored doll (above) holding the tomahawk. It's Louis Prima meets Sitting Bull. The wide angle face emphasizes the big, happy grin. This is a mischievous but highly likable figure that seems intended to diminish racial tensions, not inflame them.
Eventually Italians (above) got into the act. Look at those eyebrows! This isn't surprising considering that Italians often played indians in the movies.
The most famous of all Italian film indians was Paul Picerni, shown here (above) in a still from "House of Wax." I'll bet the red doll with the thick eyebrows (the picture above the picture above) is actually Picerni.
Just for the heck of it, here's (above)the original Cleveland Indians logo from the 30s and 40s...
...and the redo, done in 1950. I like them both, but my favorite is the older version. Thanks to Rogellio for the useful info about this.
You could argue that indian caricatures don't look much like real indians, but so what? Caricatures of white people don't look like white people, either. When's the last time you saw a white guy who looked like Barney Rubble?
Hmmm. Well, maybe I chose the wrong example. If you put my schnoz on Brad Bird's face...
One last word: John is afraid that this post will make his seem racist, which was far from his intent, and I'll add that it's very far from mine too. I can't stand racism and would never deliberately do anything to contribute to it. My intent is not to hold indians up to ridicule, but simply to show them in a humorous light, which is different. I'll bet if I lived in the 19th century and showed these pictures to indians, they'd double up laughing at the caricatures of their friends.
Thanks to Kali, John and Mike for letting me use these toy pictures. The opinions are entirely my own.
68 comments:
I took the photos, so you are welcomed, Eddie. :)
“One last word: John is afraid that this post will make his seem racist, which was far from his intent, and I'll add that it's very far from mine too. I can't stand racism and would never deliberately do anything to contribute to it. My intent is not to hold Indians up to ridicule, but simply to show them in a humorous light, which is different.”
Well said, Mr. Fitzgerald
Personally, I believe the general populace in our society is becoming cynical and overly sensitive about such issues.
Granted, if one forgets about his or her history, it can, and will, cost them their future.
For me, I never have any qualms or to say a bad word to anyone UNLESS if they were dreadful, but even then I’ll never stoop to the level of negatively commenting about the slant of ones eyes or their religion or the colour of their skin.
For me, it simply doesn’t make any sense; it’s a lot like ordering a ham sandwich, but without the ham.
I know using a ham sandwich as an allegory to racism is a poor example, but I hope you do understand, Uncle Eddie.
I hope your feeling better,
From an aspiring animator/ artist
I completely agree with you that the Indian caricatures are cute and funny, and I don't have a problem with them now that I'm an adult.
As a kid, though, I was uncomfortable with them. I knew I was 1/4 American Indian myself, but I was ashamed of it due to the way Indians were shown in cartoons and movies. In cartoons they were always shown as ridiculous buffoons (but really every other race but whites had this problem in cartoons--even if their character was supposed to be friendly, he was still required to be an idiot, whereas not all white characters were idiots). The stereotype drawings probably wouldn't have bothered me at all otherwise but the caricature of Indians as stupid, vicious savages who can't speak English (all that "me smokum peace pipe" stuff) was insulting and I was worried about being associated with it when I was a wee little one.
I just wanted to bring up how these stereotypes can and did harm. Making a kid ashamed of her own heritage is pretty damaging. Now that I'm an adult I can see past the cultural associations with stereotype drawings and just appreciate them as funny pictures, but the reason people are upset by stereotype drawings to start with is because they're a reminder about behavior stereotypes, not because the drawing is, in itself, mocking.
P.S. Indians don't all have huge noses, but we do have a distinct nose SHAPE. I have what I'd consider an Indian nose.
Dear Sir,
Tut-tut. You talk about Native Americans, you talk about humor, but you never talk about the great Indian humorist?
The man who has done more for humanizing the image of the Cherokee than any other person? A man of devastating wit combined with great personal warmth is a rarity indeed and you do him injustice by excluding him.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Rogers-Will-LOC.jpg
Kris: Do you think so? My memory is that indians were portrayed as dignified, and even justified in lots of western dramas. You don't expect to see people treated with dignity in comedy, it's not set up for that.
White people may have had more dignified roles to play, even in comedy, but there was lots of caricature even within those white roles. Fat white people were lampooned for being fat, Irish were limited to policemen and priests, buck teeth were a sign of stupity, business men were blowhards, etc., etc.
Kali: Sorry! I went back and changed the attribution!
You premise is off, Eddie. The archetypal caricature of Indians in 20th century comic strips and cartoons is one of grimly inexpressive, deadpan stoicism, NOT “the wide-eyed, fun-loving look”. I think you're confusing the happy expressions of advertising characters and mascots in general with Indian characters in cartoons. They're completely different. (When Clampett did hyper-expressive Indians, he was deliberately poking fun at the conventional stereotype, as seen in John Ford westerns, etc.)
BTW, Eddie, I predict this post will be willfully "misunderstood" by pompous asses and PC malcontents - who will ignorantly accuse you of being a closet racist. Just letting you know.
That broadly grinning Indian baseball mascot resembles Louis Prima wearing rouge.
These comments of mine are more in response to the whole issue, what I have read across various posts and comments rather than directed at anyone in particular:
I think part of the problem is that, for a long time, nearly all representations of minorities in the mainstream media were caricatures ---one-sided portrayals that reduce a group of people to a single set of characteristics. There were very few portrayals that indicated the same depth and variety that one finds in portrayal of whites.
Even if this art is intended as playful or dignified, it's difficult to presume the effect that this would have on members of those minority groups, who were, concurrent to these reprsentations, being treated as second-class citizens. If most of mainstream America's views on a minority group were being shaped by such caricatures, and there was a very real difference in the treatment of these minorities by mainstream America, then it does not seem so surprising that a negative association would form with these images, one so strong that it might, for members of those groups, continue even to the present day. This doesn't mean that every member of those minority groups is going to feel the same way about it, but it seems at least understandable why some would be offended.
Again, even if it seems like a positive caricature ---one that doesn't highlight any particularly negative characteristics--- it can still have a negative effect in that the group that was perceived to be in a position of power over you was also not making much effort to understand you in a more substantive manner. It doesn't matter whether the caricature was "wide-eyed" and "fun loving" or "stoic," the point is that both representations do not go much further than the surface. I know that not every representation was shallow or unsubstantial, but I am speaking of those that are, which seem to have been the rule, rather than the exception.
Nor does this mean that I am accusing any of you of believing or thinking in a racist way, I am just trying to indicate what some of these representations might suggest for those who do take offense to them. I don't believe anyone who defends these representations is necessarily ill-intentioned; I recognize that these may have value from the technical or artistic perspective. But in defending those aspects one should not lean so far in that direction so as to forget that the issue is more nuanced than it might seem on the surface, certainly more so than that people are merely being "overly sensitive" when offended. Simply holding this view does not render me a pompous ass or a PC malconent, I have attempted to make objective and reasoned points.
How dare you all! and so forth.
It is funny that Indians in movies and TV of yesteryear were rarely ever portrayed by the real deal. As you said, often they were portrayed by Italians, many of whom shared the nose shape and swarthy complexion. I wonder why, though? Was it likely just because there weren't many actual Indians working in the movie industry back then?
I always thought the casting was pretty funny in comedic westerns, like the white actors playing Indians in the show "F-Troop", and Jewish comic Joey Bishop playing the Indian pal of fellow Rat Packer, Dean Martin in "Texas Across the River". It reminds me of the casting in the biblical epics like "The Ten Commandments", etc, where Americans played the persecuted Jews while British actors stood in for the pompous Roman types. It almost seemed like they were making an analogy of biblical events to the American Revolution!
As for all these grinning Indian toys - they're cartoons and they're funny. I particularly like the smoking Indian maiden who is...well...SMOKIN"!! :)
Maybe it is just the intention to show that the caricature was done in good humor, to have them smiling.
Unfortunately, in the past 30 years, this idea has helped ruin cartooning, as some cartoonists think the smile is a constant.
Unfortunately, some of Uncle Eddies bread and butter has in the past been dependent on some of these character designs who smiled a bit too much. It can be as bad as John Ks 'tude plague' of hipsterism.
No, a character you can laugh at and with, runs the full melodramatic spectrum of human existance,
As far as racial caricature, where it might go too far is in the assumption and kneejerk reaction of the beholder. If Eddie, Jerry Lewis, or Vito Scotti wear buck teeth it is not necessarily an asian caricature (it could be), merely someone with an overbite. But if someone THINKS you are unfairly making fun of a particular group (even if the group is those with cute and attractive overbites) that is where the problem may be.
As far as the indian, ahem, Native American, portraiture and haricature however, some of the costuming aspects are a bit overblown even in the photographs, as some of these poor natives were part of World Fair vaudeville type theatre, wearing costuming and details that might not necessarily resemble their day to day wear.
What if the President of the United States, on those days where he didn't have to appear to the public, hung around the house in boxer shorts and a wifebeater? Would we think that the presidential costume?
Politics around the turn of the century going into world war one, many heads of state wore military dress uniforms, or the aristocratic formal dress of the day, that is so easy to use as a label. Cowboys became spangled guitar slingers as soon as talkies arrived. Mounties even came back into being in the late seventies and eighties, as State Hiway patrols adopted canadian mountie style hats so they could be seen as different from city police.
Being different is not a handicap. Exaggerating that difference is not handicapping.
Justin: That sounds fair enough in some ways, but you don't leave enough room for comedy. It would be very difficult to do something funny while navigating the difficult waters of people's historical sensitivities.
Occassionally you see something funny that manages to keep everybody happy, like the Will Smith sitcom that used to be on TV, but it doesn't happen often.
Sometimes I wonder if stage comedy is primarily an English, Italian, jewish and Inca art form. Actually, I don't know if the pre-Columbian Incas did stage comedy but their pottery and scupture is full of hilarious cartoony caricature and comedy in a Virgil Partch kind of style. The LA County Museum on Wilshire has an interesting collection of this, and you can see examples on the net. I put up a post showing examples about a year and a half ago.
The pre-Columbian Incas (and some of the Mayans) were very appreciative of comedy so you have to say that some indians liked it and others didn't. I don't think the ones who liked it would have much to criticize about these sculptures.
Mike F. is right. The grinning pop-eyed Indian mascot borrows from a character beloved by the American public since before the founding of the republic itself: the smiley Negro.
Eddie: I understand and agree with the essence of your response ---I definitely think there should be room for comedy, even "edginess" that will no doubt offend some, and I tried to convey an understanding that non all Indians/Native Americans would feel similarly. My main concern was that some seem to portray this issue as if there were no room to be offended.
To me, a movie like Coonskin makes great use of stereotype, in the "equal opportunity" way that John K. discusses ---but is also a very nuanced commentary, otherwise. I'm surprised that people don't mention this one more often when discussing these and related issues.
Wonderful post! I tend to agree with John that it will seem racist to many people (not me). You're playing with fire, but that's a risk involved in doing great, meaningful posts.
I remember seeing Western dramas showing Indians as one-dimensional, usually brutal enemies. There were certainly exceptions (sometimes within the same film) but often the lead (white) character would be shown justifiably hating Indians due to Indians having killed his family or something, there would be implications of the Indians raping white women and scalping whites while the white man's atrocities toward the Indian were often shown as lesser evil, and perhaps justified revenge.
It really gave me a bit of a complex at the time.
Agreed that you don't expect anyone to come out looking good in comedy. I guess when I grew up seeing these images, though, without really seeing any positive depictions of Indians, it kind of got to me. I really got the impression at the time that Indians got the worst depictions even in cartoons, though, but it may have been just that I noticed it more because it bothered me in a personal way.
Hi Eddie,
I'm too much of a clown to have a serious opinion on this. I like Mike F.'s point that Clampett was poking fun at stereotypes. I think that sort of thing happened a lot, we're just removed from the jokes now. Truly racist attempts at humor are flat out NOT funny.
I did a post here about unintentional comedy, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Caleb: Unintentional comedy is great, and you put up some good examples!
This is going off topic Uncle Ed, but what are your thoughts on the British comedian, Benny Hill?
A lot of feminist groups and critics had denounced his performances for being a "dirty old man, tearing the clothes off nubile girls" which to me, is uncalled for; it was the women who chased Hill in anger for undressing them, all of which were done accidentally by some ridiculous means. Hill had often pointed out that the female characters were all intelligent and kept their dignity, while the men chasing them were all comically portrayed as womanizing buffoons.
Benny Hill often demonstrated his versatility as an actor by appearing in many different costumes and portraying a vast array of characters, which can be hard to pull of, even for an experienced actor. Slapstick and double entendre were his hallmarks, and the timing in his gags was unrivaled. Charlie Chaplin was a big fan of Hill’s work: he even invited Hill, who considered Chaplin to be his childhood idol, was a fan when he was invited to his home in Switzerland by the Chaplin family. He was flattered that Chaplin had a collection of Hill's work on video.
When I was a child, my family and I had gone to visit our relatives in England. I was baffled that it was considered taboo in the United Kingdom to show or release anything that is related to his program or his older sketches from the 50’s & 60’s, which is a crime in every sense of the word. I was lucky kid to see re-runs of his show back home in Canada during the 90’s, but now his program rarely comes on, which to me, I consider it to be a crime.
I find his work, especially when he was a very proficient composer and singer of sophisticated patter songs, to be inspiring; he often entertained his audience with lengthy high-speed double-entendre rhymes / songs which he would recite & sing within a single take.
What are your thoughts, Uncle Ed?
Here are some examples of his stuff:
A Funny Song
The Life of Maurice Dribble: From Womb to Tomb (In 5 mins, 46 secs.)
Behind the Bamboo Curtain
Ernie, The Fastest Milkman in the West
From an aspiring animator/ artist
Bruce: I love Benny Hill! I had no idea that Chaplin liked him, but now that you mention it, I can see why. I was with Clampett when a fan asked him if there was anything on TV that appealed to him, and Clampett answered enthusiastically, "Benny Hill!"
I watched the videos and they were great. Many thanks!
I was curious so I looked around a bit.
The oldest (and only) smiling Indian character I know of is the Cleveland Indians' mascot "Chief Wahoo".
Why isn't he stoic???
Read this short article and you'll know why from the person responsible for it!!!
(It's the second red highlighted paragraph on the page)
Also
So nobody confuses "Chief Wahoo" with the comic character "Big Chief Wahoo".
The very popular comic character "Big Chief Wahoo" was created by Elmer Woggon in Ohio in 1936.
At some point afterwards the Cleveland Indians started calling their stoic Indian mascot "Chief Wahoo" probably because of the local Ohio newspapers.
The Indians redesigned "Chief Wahoo" in 1946 which is explained in the first article I linked to.
My opinion on this matter is in line with Mike's, but I'm not adept at articulating it with pinnache. My comments on John's blog about this subject were unpublished.
Maybe I said the 'f' word.
I will add, though, that although Brad Bird does resemble Barney Rubble ( though I bet Barney drew more appealing drawings on his cave walls than Bird does with his mouse ), when I look at him, all I see is Haley Joel Osmont in thirty years with an affinity for cake.
After all, not every forty-something animator can be as in shape as John is.
Kricfalusi, not Lassetter.
- trevor.
There's this kid I knew in high school who looked exactly like Redskins mascot.
I have an Indain nose, so does my mom, so does my grandmother. My indian bloog overshadows my spanish blood in that regard.
I used to live in Guatemala, where I regularly interacted with full blooded indians. In Guatemala alot of Indians are housekeepers for Meztizos (half bloods and mutts) like my family. They wore traditional Mayan dress, blue, red and yellow woven together brilliantly. Everyone had those big noses.
It's not just a big nose, it's a crooked Dick Tracy bony nose. We've got it. Stop trying to deny it, Indians.
Nah, racism was never John's intent, and he illustrated it pretty well with an example from his own childhood.
The point I was trying to make on John's blog earlier was the baggage that comes from some specific stereotypes. Many Black caricatures from the 1940's are demonized today, because even if no harm was intended, they still reflect a culture which at the time was still receiving the last half of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Today's Black caricatures aren't taken as seriously because, sad as it sounds, us Blacks are now free to mess up our culture for ourselves. Of course, we don't need Spike Lee or Al Sharpton to tell us that.
Hey Eddie do you think there is a difference between cartoons such as Coal Black and minstrel shows?
Eddie , this is a post I sent to John, that he didn't think enough of to post. Perhaps you will have more respect for the viewpoint:
You still have not provided a link in your reasoning from
people are mean
therefore don't draw people funny
I can't claim that for my reasoning.
I would say that a specific context might suggest that you should watch what you are willing to project about specific people or groups, unless you are an oaf who does not care which side of an issue he ends up on. I would say that in an environment of wholesale extermination of natives, or thereafter, it might be expected to find some imagery that qualifies as bad taste or insensitivity. What would that look like? Who should be the judge?
As for those artists of the earlier 20th century who may have contributed to the racism of the day, which is what I was posting about, I believe that most of them did so innocently, or perhaps ignorantly, And some of it was hilarious, anyway. It's hard to stay mad at something that's really funny. But it was not without social impact, and in a certain regard, it was often oafish, if you can stop long enough to consider the big picture for the object of the joke at that time.
I think you should draw whatever you want, as funny as you want, guided by your taste.
I think historically there may be an issue of bad taste here, but I'm not freaking out about it nor am I equally perturbed by everything from the past that I see.
I don't believe those dolls ultimately symbolize anything positive, although they are funny, and certainly innocent enough on a certain level to be ultimately forgiven. I believe on another level they serve to help ridicule, marginalize, reduce, and dismiss native people, whom popular culture had long informed us were demons to be scrubbed from the land. I find the idea of marketing such an icon to be metaphorically a little more like adding insult to injury, or kicking a guy who's already down than I might personally want to get involved with, if I stopped to look at it that way. It seems kinda boorish for a society. "We don't really care for you as people, good-bye, in fact -but we love referring to you as symbols! It's fun!"
My reading of history would indicate that they deserve much better than they got, and that those dolls in a sense offer a potent reminder of the raw deal, and how easy it was for America to flip them off, without much of a thought. But that's me. Maybe I'm just too symbolic.
It's what you think is funny about people that defines the potential for racism, isn't it? Maybe it's just the overarching nature of the culture you innocently live in at the time. Maybe it's in denial. Maybe racism was once so commonplace to be seen by some as normal and quaint.
IDRC: I don't agree, but I'm not offended when I get opposing points of view. Actually, I don't think John is, either. It's just that his site is set up with a slightly different goal in mind.
Apart from obvious craziness or mean-spiritedness I usually won't censor anything. Sometimes I'll delete political tracts that are a kind of spam, with only the slightest connection to what's being discussed. Sometimes I leave out something creepy. I feel guilty about doing that, but what can you do?
Man, those toys are so much fun. They are made for us to embrace the people, not hate.
Eddie!!! I need your help! I have posted an entry on my blog about celebrity caricatures in cartoons, with sort of a half-theory about it. However it might need the assistance of your top theory mind to be completed. your two cents would be appreciated!
Eddie, do you like Bruce Bickford?
Anon: Compare Coal Black to minstril shows? That would take a whole doctoral dissertation!
IDRC: I don't agree, but I'm not offended when I get opposing points of view. Actually, I don't think John is, either. It's just that his site is set up with a slightly different goal in mind.
I have no interest in dominating his thread, but he directly challenged me, and then discarded my response. That's at least bad etiquette.
I don't know if I entirely agree with what I said. I do know I have long lived in a world of what appears to me like white denial of racism. I'm sorry if that concept offends anybody.
Sorry IRDC, but you'll find me neither in agreement with nor sympathetic to your views regarding these cartoon depictions of Indians. They are both fun and funny, without being the least bit offensive. They are CARTOONS, period. If you choose to be offended by these images on behalf of all American Indians, that is your privilege of course, but as a cartoonist myself, I stand behind these whimsical depictions as being entirely fair game.
Just out of curiosity, if it's because of the big silly grins on their faces that you consider them somehow racist, then how would you wish to see them depicted? If one looks at vintage historical photos like the ones Eddie has posted of Sitting Bull, it would seem to indicate that the average American Indian was a rather humourless, grim faced individual. In which case, the Disney artists got it right in their depiction of the Indian Chief in "Peter Pan". The problem is, Disney has taken a lot of heat for that too over the years! So, how then does one portray Indians in cartoon form?
In searching for other cartoon pics of Indians via Google, I came upon this blog post whose author also has a hangup with the depiction in cartoons, notably the Cleveland Indians' "Chief Wahoo". At the top of the post there's a nifty cartoon of another Disney Indian Chief from "A Cowboy Needs a Horse", which I think is also a great caricature of the Sitting Bull type. Again, I think Disney created a good cartoon representation of reality with this image, so I don't understand what the problem is.
So how do these depictions sit with you, IRDC? Is the grim faced reality more palatable than the happy grinning variety? And if not, how would you have we cartoonists draw American Indians? I'm starting to wonder whether we should just avoid drawing minorities altogether, as it seems we cartoonists are damned for whatever we come up with. So is that the answer? Do we just ignore everyone on this earth other than caucasians when we pick up our pencils and put them to paper? Personally, I think that would be racist if we completely ignored all non-white ethnic groups, but if they are to be included in mainstream society then we white guy cartoonists should have free rein to depict them every bit as funny looking as our own kind. And if anybody is offended by the results, I say let them be offended. Frankly, I honestly don't give a damn so long as I'm having fun. :)
Despite there isn't racism into the indian cartooning,It seems that is a certain fear towards the race which is not yet known in depth,that has big mysteries,like indian shamanism.
Sometimes against the fear we use the recourse of laughter.In this case the smile of the Jazz singers is mixed with some indian traits.
I wonder if the goofy grinning Indian is a little like some sort of misdirection therapy. Like seeing a happy chicken joyfully advertising a fried chicken place.
With many of these cartoon racism topics, I have no problem with caricature and certain groups are more likely to have certain features but I would also see it as important to acknowledge the historical context. The goofy Indians are funny. But, like that yummy piece of fried chicken, when you take the events around that imagery into account and, for me, it becomes a little unsettling and, in the case of the grinning Indians, slightly distasteful.
I think it's important not to be reactionary and look for any opportunity to cry 'racism' but I also think it's important to consider sensitivities, history and respect those.
Phantom: Who is Bruce Bickford?
Nico: Wow!!! Nice post! Terrific frame grabs and photos, an interesting subject, and the color looks great against the royal blue background! Congrats!
Pete: Haw! I agree! There is no acceptable way to draw minorities, so they tend to be drawn blandly and unimaginatively or not at all. This is a kind of self-inflicted punishment that makes no sense at all.
The link was interesting! Thanks!
Denise: Louis Jordan had indian charecteristics? You probably mean psychological or cultural traits. I wonder.
Eddie these cartoons were really no different than minstrel shows made during that time. It's just a group of people taking opressed cultures they don't understand or have respect for and obnoxiously making fun of them to make each other laugh. Both you and John have had people of both Native American and Black decent voice their opinions on your blogs of why they find images like this offensive and you both basically say "Well they don't offend me, I don't see why would they offend anyone else" It like you never take the time to put the perspective of the offended people into veiw. You know ver well of cartoons like Coal Black started airing in theaters again there would be HUGE upset. Why? Because obviouly people don't want to be taken back to a time of racial oppression and yes I know you and John are againt that but obviously when people see images of 1940's racial caricatures, they're going to take it that way. Most people have moved on from a pre civil rights era mentality. Anyway I think it's a little unwise to just brush off opinions of people who genuinely take offence to these images. You should listen more to what they are saying.
You don't know who Bruce Bickford is?! Oh, man! You don't know what you're missing! He's a stop-motion animator who worked with Frank Zappa. His sets are small and he sculpts these incredibly detailed tiny, tiny little people who take part in weird storylines. One scene morphs into another, and the effect is incredible! Go to Youtube NOW and type in "Bruce Bickford".
He has a website too. You should check that out.
Come back here and tell me what you think about it.
I wanted to co-sign on what Bitter Animator said:
"I think it's important not to be reactionary and look for any opportunity to cry 'racism' but I also think it's important to consider sensitivities, history and respect those."
First, I didn't "cry racism", I talked about it. That's what a lot of people won't do. As soon as you start, they say you are, "Playing the race card." Second I don't find any of those images offensive, I find them questionable. I'm not an Indian, I'm black. They don't affect me, but I could point you to some things that do, and they make me sympathetic.
Just out of curiosity, if it's because of the big silly grins on their faces that you consider them somehow racist, then how would you wish to see them depicted?
I don't know what they are supposed to draw now, or what they should have drawn then, if anything, and it's not my job to figure it out. It's my job to point out apparent hypocrasy. Maybe it would be better to pretend that natives never existed. That would at least be consistent.
Notice we are not talking about making funny Jew drawings. Everyone knows better. Neither history nor Jews would permit such a thing. It's obvious to everybody why. It's not my fault. Exterminate a people, pay a price? Maybe that's how it is.
I have been very specific in talking about the dolls, because they are purely a marketing device. Perhaps you should take a moment and think how funny that would be for you. As for old cartoons, it's more disturbing to me when natives are killed off in a conveyor belt gag, or something like that. A little too much like real life for me. That doesn't mean I'm so humorless that I can't laugh at it. I always have. Does it mean you are so desensitized that you can't be disturbed by it?
I think that on some level, as you extinguish people, perhaps you extinguish many of the possibilities for comedy and fun at their expense, too. Call me crazy.
White people don't get to say the 'N" word any more. They F-ed it up. I think they F-ed this up, too. Now they have to find a way back. We just don't typically say as much about it, maybe because Indians have bad PR people.
Maybe you shouldn't get upset with me, but your ancestors. They were terrible at sharing. It had consequences. You're looking at one. Where you see a grinning doll, I see a virtual decapitation, vivid as day.
Why are there such a plethora of grinning Indians, Blacks and Asians, if the grin has no meaning?
Here is something I came across, for anyone feeling scholarly. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if it tends to support or refute me.
http://www.aistm.org/symbolic.racism.htm
Hello Eddie,I'd like to say that who has the psychological or cultural traits of the jazz singer was the indian caricature.( It isn't mean that these races have the same physical traits)
The use of the laughter and smile in our culture is to indicate among others things,that we are no afraid.Desmond Morris in his book THE NAKED APE said:"So the laugh says,'I recognise that a danger is not real,"
I was wondering if anyone would like to look at my "Indian" on my blog. I was thinking an animator was inovlved in his design and was wondering if anyone knew who or if the artist(s) might be. Comments from you afficianados would be appreciated.
idrc: I don't think the 'cry racism' comment was directed at you, but was rather a general comment.
I find the comment you made about jewish caricatures to be interesting. It seems true that there isn't quite the same plethora of funny-lookin-jewish-person memorabilia as there are of native americans or blacks. I imagine that such things are more likely to exist in Europe, though, where jews were obviously subject to a more intense focus (not saying anti-semitism isn't present here as well, though).
Part of the reason it comes to mind is that I recall having seen caricatures on television and in books of jewish people from pre-war Europe, but one of the things that strikes me as different from American representations of native americans and blacks is that these caricatures were obviously meant to scare people, as opposed to inspire laughter.
To me, it's an interesting difference in perspective ---in both cases there is an 'in-group' commenting on an 'out-group,' but in the case of europe, jews were perceived as having some kind of control or power over society that was to be feared.
Here in the states, the minority groups of native americans and blacks were not seen as in control, and so were less threatening, more likely to be represented as a smiling, child-like figure that is not meant to be taken seriously.
In both cases, though, there is an in-group (white mainstream society) that is defining the out-group (jews, blacks, native americans) according to its own impressions. In both cases, the in-group is the one in control, and so it does create a problem in that it has the potential to shape beliefs and subseqently behavior towards those people.
Even with all the progress that has been made, legally and socially, since those times, I think it is difficult for whites (myself included) sometimes to perceive that the effects of those past social structures persist even to the present day. It can be very subtle, and it would be difficult for whites, who are not at the receiving end, to perceive all of the things that can still have a marginalizing effect, discouraging equal participation even where that was not the intent.
It is not that people in the arts (comedy included!) should be adverse to freedom of expression, but I guess I'm curious as to why the reluctance to acknowledge that these images are reflective of a history that was racist. Personally, I have a very difficult time not seeing the images as being connected to that history. It seems to me there's a gray area than can simultaneously acknowledge value to the arguments about caricature and that there is indeed a racist history associated with these particular stylings.
Justin; Interesting comment. I for one am completely aware that the origin of minority caricature was based partly on racism. That's so obvious that it hardly needs mention.
What's never mentioned is that caricatures were often based on the benign impulse to lessen racism by making the target of the drawing seem cute or happy or hip. Even when caricatures are depicted as being mischievous or rascally, that's a far cry from a depiction as evil and menacing. The attempt of the artist to lessen racial tension is often ignored.
It also never seems to occur to the race-interested that white satire, which can be devastating and is most often aimed at other whites, just spills over onto other people. Whites depict each other as fat, lazy, wimpy, brutish, ditsy, hen-pecked, stupid etc. all the time. I do it myself constantly, and am proud of it. It would be absurd to conclude from that, that I hate white people. If I ever treated minorities that way, it would simply be a case of applying the same lens to them that I apply to people of my own type.
idrc: I don't think the 'cry racism' comment was directed at you, but was rather a general comment.
By being general it also includes me. It includes anyone who wishes to talk about race, and is a plain example of how easy it is to reduce the topic, even if it was not your conscious intent. The statement implies that to talk about racism is to bleat about it. It's a plainly false characterization.
Gerard: Wow! A rally nice sculpture, probably by an animation artist. Thanks for putting it up!
If I ever treated minorities that way, it would simply be a case of applying the same lens to them that I apply to people of my own type.
Eddie, did you read that paper I linked to? It's very interesting.
I don't know who the guy is; for all I know he should be stripped of his credentials, but he not only supports everything I said, he lifts it about 20 stories.
If his data is sound, one thing we can state with no doubt is that nobody needs to be accused of getting upset on behalf of native people. They are plenty pissed off already, and on any question about it, white people are found at the opposite end of the spectrum. Hmm.
So, frankly, in a just world, I don't think it's about what you think, I don't think it's about what I think, I think it's about what they think, and I think that for some reason, white people are challenged when it comes to recognizing that. At this point, even if Indians are being hypersensitive -which would be in my view a reckless and selfish conclusion -I think white America should say, y'know what? we don't need this stuff, and we're sorry for pissing you off.
That would be the decent thing.
IDRC said: "Eddie, did you read that paper I linked to? It's very interesting. I don't know who the guy is; for all I know he should be stripped of his credentials, but he not only supports everything I said, he lifts it about 20 stories."
Well IDRC, I certainly was curious enough to take a look at the article you linked to and I tried hard to get through it, I really did. The problem is, Prof. James V. Fenelon loses me pretty quickly because he is incapable of writing his paper in a clear and concise manner. However, I did slog through enough to get the gist of what he's saying, and I most definitely do not share his views.
His presentation of the Cleveland Indians' logo as it evolved through the years only convinces me of one thing - that Prof. Fenelon neither likes nor understands cartoons. That first incarnation is pretty dry, even if Fenelon thinks it's a somewhat better depiction of an Indian, and I can well understand why they eventually arrived at the funny cartoon character, "Chief Wahoo". Looking at what was going on at the time in animated shorts in those optimistic post-war years, one can see that the ball team was trying to inject some much needed fun and humour into their mascot logo design, that's all. Chief Wahoo would fit well in any Loony Tunes cartoon of the period.
Looking at all the various pro sports team logos via Google search, it seems to me that there are a lot less outright cartoon depictions anymore. Most logos are "stylized" but I wouldn't call them cartoons. The Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Redskins logos are completely benign depictions of Indian heads in profile, while the Atlanta Braves is a more naturalistic, comic book style Indian giving a war cry. I get the impression that none of these images sit well with ol' Fenelon, though. He considers any depiction of an Indian as a team mascot or logo to be demeaning to the entire race.
By the way, I tried to understand his survey questions and the results he printed, but I find everything this joker writes to be pretty incomprehensible. Again, all I can surmise is that the survey results prove his theory that all we white folks are racist for allowing such depictions to persist.
And if it's cartoon depictions representing the Indian race that the good Prof. objects to, I wonder if he will also champion the cause of those poor persecuted Irish, who are being so terribly exploited and demeaned by that nasty smiling leprechaun stereotypically leaning on his shillelagh on the Boston Celtics logo. Hmm, considering most basketball players are Black, doesn't that just smack of reverse racism against we white folk?
IDRC: I looked up the article you mentioned and it was written in such a boring and academic manner that I couldn't bring myself to read it, though I made an attempt. I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this subject.
Pete: Well said! I love Irish (my nationality) caricatures like the ones in Happy Hooligan, where we're drawn like apes. The strip was an attempt to make Irishmen seem humorous and addled, rather than menacing, and was an attempt to help us, not hurt us.
Just to show you how depraved I am, I even like some of the mean-spirited ones like the one by Thomas Nast that depicted the Irish as vicious alligators wih pope hats threatening to eat English-American children on the beach. I can't help it...it's funny.
When I was in England last time I had to put up with a certain amount of humor implying that Americans are stupid. I got mad sometimes, but only a little. The fact is that the English think all foreigners
are stupid, Americans included. Their worst barbs are reserved for insults against other Englishmen.
Hey, Eddie, in light of this post's subject matter, what would you think of a comedy sketch like this?
doesn't that just smack of reverse racism against we white folk?
Is this your idea of a serious debate question?
The Chicago Blackhawks and Washington Redskins logos are completely benign depictions of Indian heads in profile,
Redskins is a word with a similar connotation to nigger. Surprise. But I can't expect your glaring rationalizations and gross dismissals of native concerns to come to a halt over such a fact.
Well, Englishmen and Irishmen are still white... what atrocities did they ever have to suffer at the hand of the man?
Personally I think stereotypical imagery is not only mean, but lazy. Take the Fats Waller caricature in Clampett's Tin Pan Alley Cats. It's absolutely horrible. The exaggeration should be on Waller's cheeks (his most prominent feature), not his lips. It doesn't celebrate Waller, it just reduces him to a typical darkie caricature.
I like the Peter Pan Indians though. They at least have a variety of shapes, faces, and body types, even if the whole scene is quite racist.
In a perfect world, we could all have a good laugh with these. But try having your civil rights violated and having a good old time with this stuff.
And also, Emslie's caricatures are wonderful, including the black guys he was chastised for drawing. They show a respect for the individual, and any exaggeration is taken from observance of the actual person, not a generalization on a whole group of people.... which is how any great caricaturist works.
David: Very funny! Thanks for the link!
>>Well, Englishmen and Irishmen are still white... what atrocities did they ever have to suffer at the hand of the man?
Way to whitewash over Irish history.
Does that make you racist even though the Irish are white (albeit all with red hair and freckles in cartoons)?
Just a quick response to IDRC:
No, IDRC, that is not my idea of a serious debate question. I simply make the comparison in jest, as I'm trying to show you just how ridiculous it is for anybody to get their knickers in a knot over some funny cartoon image, be it a grinning Indian or Irish leprechaun. However, there is a certain kernel of truth behind my ironic humour, as I do believe that racism can cut both ways - it's not a one way street as you would prefer to have us believe. I just don't happen to think that either of these cartoon depictions are meant in a mean-spirited or demeaning fashion, and therefor do not constitute racism.
As to your other point, I was simply suggesting the benign and banal visual imagery of the Indian head logos of the two teams I cited. I'm not going to be lured into a debate about the team names, as frankly I'm indifferent to that aspect of your argument, being a paleskin myself...
Your indifference as a member of the dominant group is the definition of racism. Sorry to have to break it to you.
Speaking of stereotypes, I see a white guy in denial, but in my book, that is really a type, not a stereotype.
I don't have a dog in this fight. Native America is mad at White America, not me.
In looking for which side to take, I can't find one reason to take the side of whites, whose whole argument consists on the right to do whatever they want, whatever way they want, as it always has, and who routinely take the polar opposite position of natives. Nothing has happened in the blogosphere to change my mind about it.
I am always leary when important issues are sidestepped in an argument. It tells you something. Several have been raised, and the only rebuttals are, "I don't care", or "I still disagree, anyway."
In fact, Mr. Emslie, if I were to honestly paraphrase your last post, it seems to boil down to, "screw them, I'm white."
If you found it too hard to understand bar graphs, I have extracted a couple of quotes from the study:
"We find that these differential codified responses about what "Wahoo really means," reflect the local society well, showing that whites have developed an elaborate system of denials and justifications."
"Sharply defined group interests and feelings are evidenced in the written responses of the survey, such as the defensiveness and justified denials in the #1 pro-Racist, #2 anti-Protest, and #3 pro-Wahoo categories. At times these whites will deny it has connection to Native people and that it "honors" Native Americans in the same sentence. These examples of both anti-Indian and anti-minority feeling show "harmless" and "honoring" are another form of discourse control by whites as the dominant group. Dominants are in position to enforce definitions over those subordinated, interpreting a "cartoon caricature" as "not disrespectful" or harmful."
White America's report card is still, "Does not play well with others".
I'm glad you liked it, Eddie.
I personally have two issues with that skit though. 1) The part about "God inventing golf". That does a great disservice to the Scots who developed it like Adam Paterson and Coburn Haskell. But I guess reciting the entire history of golf before giving the punch line would ruin the joke, so whatever. 2) I didn't care for the joke made about the Italian. It wasn't Italy-specific. That punch line would've worked for anyone. "How do you know Eddie Fitzgerald has been at your house?" It fits. That was laziness on their part I think.
But, all in all it was a delightful sketch precisely because it's about as unpolitically correct as anything can get. They seemed to be shouting "I DARE all of you to write us angry letters about it!!!"
IDRC opined: In fact, Mr. Emslie, if I were to honestly paraphrase your last post, it seems to boil down to, "screw them, I'm white."
Wrong again, bucko. My attitude throughout this entire debate is more accurately paraphrased as "Screw ANYBODY who can't take a joke!"
This includes you, by the way, as you strike me as a guy who goes through life with a huge chip on his shoulder, basking in your own perceived victimization and that of other minorities by any slight from the "dominant group" as you put it. Also, let's examine this statement you made in regard to such things: "Your indifference as a member of the dominant group is the definition of racism. Sorry to have to break it to you."
Hmm, the "definition of racism" is it? Funny, but the Oxford dictionary simply defines racism as, "1) Belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. 2) Antagonism towards people of other races."
You see, there's no mention of it being just the "dominant" race that's capable of "racism". Don't think that because you yourself are the member of a minority group that means you can treat somebody of the majority group with prejudice and do so with impunity, snug in the comfort of believing that somehow lets you off the hook. Like I said before, racism is a two way street and we white guys don't have a monopoly on it. That being said, I certainly recognize that genuine racism exists in this world, but seriously IDRC, I don't think these funny, grinning Indian cartoons qualify. And as a cartoonist myself, I can tell you right now that your own hangup with these images do not result in any guilty feelings on my part. Fact is, I think you'd also have a big problem with my caricatures of the Black guys that John K posted up on his site. I'm sure you won't like them since they're also drawn in a funny cartoon style. By the way, if you go visit my blog, you'll see that I draw White people just as funny looking. Honest Injun! :)
IDRC, Pete: Once again, I agree with Pete. The caricatures Pete linked to are great, especially the one of the long-haired guy on the upper right. IDRC, you need to re-think this.
If you take the word "race", add the suffix, "ism" and put "institutional" in front of it, we have arrived at our destination. Please go research that one.
I don't have a "hangup with these images." I have been very clear to state that, and you are ignoring that fact in an effort to falsely reframe the debate as me being uptight, but don't confuse that with denial or anything.
I have a hangup with the reflexive white insistance that Wahoo cannot or should not be offensive to natives and that it is a stupid idea to claim it is. It's a plainly indefensible position.
My objection to the black caricatures is they are too pretty. It's just surface. It shows nothing about the inner life of those people, in either a positive or negative way, no real insight of any kind. It's okay for modern styling of benign black types, but all the genuine hoodlums that I see in the photos were lost.
Eddie, seriously, on what conceivable basis would I need to re-think this?
IDRC: If all comedy that offends people is out of bounds, then there won't be any comedy at all, because all comedy offends somebody. Your argument gives too much power to the naysayers. It doesn't distinguish between rational and irrational opposition.
I'll tell you what. Create a blog site and post some examples of indian caricatures you think are hilariously funny, but which you believe would be non-offensive to indians. A picture is worth a thousand words. Show me the better way you have in mind.
Lord love a duck.
I never said comedy that offends people is out-of-bounds. Are you nuts? Can anybody read?
Your statement implies that Native opposition to Wahoo is irrational.
Maybe you should rethink that. The record here clearly indicates that you definitely should, whether or not you can admit it.
I'm not trying to establish a "better way." I'm trying to get dummies in denial like you to see you have a mental block about race.
But you would NEVER EVER do ANYTHING racist. I am supposed to trust you because you show such good judgment in racial aafairs?
If you could show judgment, you might establish some credibility about your other more general racial judgments.
This is sick. I'm out. Peace, niggas.
Sincere apologies for calling you a dummy. You are clearly anything but.
That's offensive.
IDRC: No offence taken! I knew you meant it in a friendly way.
but I also think it's important to consider sensitivities, history and respect those. - Bitter Animator.
Well, I'm WAAAY late to the party, but the vast majority of "sensitivity" and hand-wringing over the fell spectre of racism in comics comes from white guys and gals. Liberal arts educated ones, with liberal arts sensibilities. As a 50-something bald, portly white guy, by rights I should blog about my discomfiture over the images of Elmer Fudd and Mr. Magoo.
Sometimes a cartoon Indian is just a cartoon Indian. My thoughts on the whole thing are here:
http://aardvarksplumbline.blogspot.com/2006/12/angry-little-aardvark-no-i-am-not.html
Followed up by:
http://aardvarksplumbline.blogspot.com/2006/12/woo-hoo-i-just-got-called-jerk-by.html
Post a Comment