Goldilocks and the Jivin Bears HQ(Part 1)

[ion010101]

You can't hurt the feelings of someone who doesn't secretly have a problem with who they are.

[cicta]

goldilocks looks fineeeeeeeeeeeee ;)

[dustygrady]

I'll bet you black people loved these cartoons when they were first released back in the 40's

[violenthues]

to be fair i don't see these characters as being black "people" just black caricatures--less than human beings. most people will tell me that this cartoon is supposed to represent my race's presence in this country, but those people obviously are unaware of that presence. cartoons like this shouldn't be erased to remind us how visual representations can both parallel and justify cruel acts against human beings.

[kotep777]

kmd - who me! sampled at for the intro

[KiwiZepFan87]

Controversial or not, I consider this toon to be a classic!

[katybelle101]

me and my lilttle sister are watching this. lol

[Falcode101]

As far as Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd people did not believe them to be an accurate betrayal of White America, they were seen as exaggerations. The problem is that the caricatures of minorities was seen as accurate. A caricature, just like a comment, can be seen as insulting or complimentary, but that is to be determined by the person who it is directed at. You may have benign intentions with your betrayal of a group of people but if it does not come across that way to them why defend the caric

[sethmanrockandroll]

@Falcode101

The problem is that people think these cartoons are racist just because they have black characters in them. Common characters in any cartoon or movie are poor men, rich men, bad guys, good guys, ugly people, pretty people, working people, lazy people, wise people and stupid people.

If you put a black character into most of those basic roles, you might be called a racist.

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

I agree with you to a point. Minorities were limited to the basic bad roles you mentioned in the media/entertainment world based on societies perception/expectations of them and that was based on race, therefore racist. There were exceptions to the rule. It may be funny, but you are laughing at something seen as hurtful. Also consider the historic context the toon was made in. Media/entertainment develope a cultures ideas and aspirations; they are the opinion shapers.

[sethmanrockandroll]

@Falcode101

I don't think those are bad roles. People come from many different parts of the country, there were many black cowboys in the old west, and there are still areas of this country where hillbillyish blacks exist and I wish that were represented more.

I don't think all of these were seen as hurtful. Not all of them were even intended to be hurtful. In fact, even some of the blackface stage performers worked that way just to get more work (such as the Stooges did).

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

People do come from all walks of life and express a broad range of emotions but this was typically not shown, when it comes to minorities, in the mainstream media/entertainment world. The majority of the images, that portrayed minorities, did not show the complexity of human thought or emotion because the majority of people did not think of them in that way or simply did not think of them; there were some exceptions to the rule.

[sethmanrockandroll]

@Falcode101

Yes, but in this particular cartoon we have at least four or five characters all with different traits and habits. Showbusiness overall was probably restricting blacks from the lead Errol Flynn types of roles, but black characters and black actors were still able to to get featured as the main attraction in cartoons like this, or in character roles and different genres. They deserved to expand obviously, but there's also no shame in being like Steve Buscemi.

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

As far as blackface, black and white actors used it, for a predominantly white audience, because it made them fill comfortable lampooning black people. Blackface was not done out of reverence, by Blacks or Whites.

[sethmanrockandroll]

@Falcode101

I was referencing the autobiography of Moe Howard where he said he was able to get around contractual agreements and get paid more money and grab more work by doubling up his stage appearances as a blackface performer (doing the same shoes he'd perform as a regular face). The point to be made there is that you can't point a wide finger at the performers of the day and say that every blackface act was meant to degrading. Some people were like Moe.

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

I agree with your last statement. Thats why I said there were exceptions. Unfortunatly the bad has a stronger influence than the good in life.

[sethmanrockandroll]

@Falcode101

I'm sorta just trying to make you be careful of what you think is "bad".

To me it feels like you guys have a checklist of stuff like.. no cannibal tribesmen, no lazy people, no ugly people, no villains, no raggedy looking people, no overly sexy exotic black women etc.

Hollywood listened to that checklist, and thats why today you'll mostly only see buddy roles or wise old guys (and there's nothing wrong with that, except when that is almost ALL THERE IS.)

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

I agree about hollywood today and it annoys me. Your point about "all there is" is the exact problem people have with the bad images in the past. The media/entertainment industry is full of extreme stereotypes of all people and that is a problem. They shift from one extreme to another to make money.

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

These types of images can be seen as reductive regardless of intent. They reinforce the belief that they are lesser beings whose only value lies in acting a certain way. You remind them that they, at one time, were believed to be intellectually weak and overall inferior and people find it funny. If you still think it’s funny and harmless after considering this is a possibility then that is your prerogative and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

As far as intent, intent is yours and yours alone it can only be interpreted by others. You may have good intentions with your portrayal of how people act, but the judge of your intentions is the person or persons you have intentionally or unintentionally targeted. There’s an old saying the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

[sethmanrockandroll]

@Falcode101

Agreed. But whatever the intention was, I don't see anything wrong with this cartoon or even some other cartoons similar to this. Bare in mind, I don't like watching Archie Bunker or some of Chris Rock's humour (I like him for energy and slapstick but he gets obsessed with race topics just like many black comedians) but I thought this cartoon was pretty neat. I also didn't like "All this and Rabbit Stew", that one sucks and is kinda offensive, but mostly just sucks.

[Falcode101]

@sethmanrockandroll

Your right about the checklist unfortunatley it can't be properly explained. Just like racism, sexism, or other forms of biggotry it is irrational and based on feelings/belifes and not logic. Trying to apply logic or having a logical discussion about irrational things will always fall short.

[happiehappiefuwafuwa]

Well...at least they made the girls look nice :/

[MrMLD72MLD]

♥ .

[flipside1545]

thanks!!!

[BankaiIchigo12345]

But all that does then is remove blacks from cartoons and that is then like not even acknowledging the existence of blacks, by intentionally removing their presence from the animated story telling and artistic medium which are cartoons. And that not acknowledging the existence of blacks by not having them in cartoons, is I believe very insulting and racist. In fact it wasn't until Disney made "The Princess and the Frog" that once again blacks were allowed to make an appearance in cartoons.

[Uncutcartoons247]

@BankaiIchigo12345 Exactly. Bravo sir,bravo.

[DLCOrganization]

Little problem with your double-speak speech there, Bank.

Black people were NOT being ACKNOWLEDGED in these early cartoons,

but rather they were being unjustly and maliciously CARICATURED to

represent a UNILATERALLY NEGATIVE IMAGE. There was NO VARIETY

of character to be seen from these images but one: the lazy, country-bumpkin

coon buffoon with broken Southern grammar.

The real-life conditions of Black people at that time weren't any better.

Why couldn't we have been just HUMAN?

> DLC

[BankaiIchigo12345]

@DLCOrganization

I didn't see much in this SPECIFIC cartoon that would be called truly racist. And in early cartoons, EVERYONE was caricatured, white or black. Elmer Fudd doesn't look exactly realistic, and he's white. Same with Yosematie Sam (or however you spell his name). Now I can say that I never hear whites complaining about those representations. Simpsons, Southpark, Familly Guy, etc parody TONS of things, including religion and family values. THOSE aren't taken off the air.

[BankaiIchigo12345]

@DLCOrganization

Also because of the fear of racism in cartoons, it was later on (after banning these "racist" cartoons) decided for a LONG time to NOT INCLUDE blacks in mainstream cartoons. First big hit movie involving a black person in a cartoon was VERY recent. It was The Princess and the Frog from Disney. So yes, fear that a cartoon black person even MIGHT be seen as racist has STIFLED the creation of ANY cartoons with blacks in them.

[BankaiIchigo12345]

@DLCOrganization

And then when The Princess and the Frog DID get made, it was only because of blacks DEMANDING they have representation in a mainstream animated film.

[DLCOrganization]

Disney producing "The Princess And The Frog" with Black people had NOTHING to do with the demands of Black people for better representation, but rather with the fact that it was the "thing to do", Bank.

Consider that after SEVENTY years of producing animated features, "P&F" was the first CEL-animated Disney film in five years and the first fairy-tale or quintessential kid's flick in NINE years. Why would Disney wait until the most drastic change in the animation industry to do this?

> DLC

[BankaiIchigo12345]

@DLCOrganization

Are you trying to tell me they did it to be "politically correct" or "just because it was the right thing to do, and probably should have done it earlier"? Are you going to tell me that complaints from blacks writing in to Disney expressing unhappiness with the fact that Disney had never given a black character a leading role in any of its animated films had nothing to do with their decision to make The Princess and the Frog?

[DLCOrganization]

Hello again, Bank.

To answer your first question, I didn't say that they thought it was the RIGHT

thing to do. I said they did it because it was the THING to do. In other words,

YES, they did it more so to be politically correct, and not necessarily (100%)

out of their own hearts or clear sense of ingenuity.

Secondly, I'm not saying that complaints to Disney did not help to make a

difference in the matter. All I'm saying is that it's a Johnny-come-lately move.

> Professor DLC

[sethmanrockandroll]

@DLCOrganization

If we have so many guys like Ernest and Larry The Cable Guy playing white countrybumpkins, then why can't we see black people embracing some of that heritage?

Did you ever see The Jerk with Steve Martin? Its one of the only movies to have black people in the country and its a cool film for that reason.

[DLCOrganization]

Another thing, Seth. Country life has always been a part

of Black life in America. However, that was the ONLY depiction

Hollywood and America had of African people in general at that

time, a dishonest one to boot. Black southerners were

HARD-WORKING, but all America saw was laziness.

As far as "The Jerk", it was one of the first movies to have

a Black FAMILY with a white foster son. Steve WAS the key

buffoon, but the image of the family was not much better still.

> DLC

[sethmanrockandroll]

@BankaiIchigo12345

I've been telling people the same thing. Its good to see people coming around.

Also, the the big pink banana lips are good for contrast. I agree there was too much of it, but its not what everyone thinks it is.

An animator has to contrast things when he/she is drawing the lines and working with different colors. Also, many people will be drawn the same so that footage can be looped, like in Jungle Jitters (which also has an ugly WHITE queen in it)

[BankaiIchigo12345]

Heard this was banned from TV for racism. This was racist how? The only human is the black girl here but she looks quite realistic and NOT like some stereotype black caricature. She looked more realistic than most white cartoon characters (think Elmer Fudd). I don't see the whole problem, unless you are going to assume that since cartoons exist to make fun of things, the very fact you have a black person in it means you are making fun of blacks.

[BankaiIchigo12345]

Why in 2 parts? will fit in ONE part as it is less than 10 minutes total.

[Uncutcartoons247]

@BankaiIchigo12345 Because the site I downloaded this from had these videos up in two parts. If I tried putting them together in WMM it would reduce the quality by a pretty good bit.