TCM pulls racist Popeye cartoon
David
Racist Popeye Cartoon Vanishes From The Airwaves With No Notice Or
Acknowledgment – So Watch It Here Instead
by Brendon Connelly
TCM in the US were last night scheduled to play Popeye The Sailor
Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves, a notoriously racist cartoon that
almost collapses under the weight of its Arab stereotyping. The film
was made in 1937 when, as far as I know, there wasn’t any particular
US-Arab conflict or issues that would have brought about such
propaganda with specific urgency. It just looks like casual, timeless
racism.
Of course, we’re currently going through a period in US foreign
relations where this cartoon is particularly potent. If it could ever
be said to be dangerous, now is likely that time.
And this, I suppose, is why the cartoon didn’t air. But why no
explanation? Why no apology? Why no statement of any kind?
Even more confusingly, TCM did air a pre-toon discussion, designed to
place the film in some kind of historical context and defang it
somewhat. Here’s the video of that short chat, courtesy of Cartoon
Brew:
That can only have piqued your interest (which, of course, is the real
reason it exists, possibly more so than providing safety-net
contextualisation).
So, let’s follow through. Here, courtesy of YouTube, is the
full-length Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves.
One good reason to watch it is to see the live-action miniature
set/animation blend in the “tabletop 3D” sequence. That starts at
12:41.
I remember being quite stunned by the “tabletop 3D” as a child, when I
first saw the cartoon somewhere between the football results and BBC
One’s Saturday night prime time shows. Even now, and even on an iffy
YouTube encode, it still holds some allure.
Incidentally, all three of the Fleischer’s longer colour Popeye toons
are based on episodes of One Thousand and One Nights. Restored
versions of the Sindbad and Ali Babi toons are both on Popeye the
Sailor: 1933-1938, Vol. 1, and Aladdin is on Popeye the Sailor:
1938-1940, Vol. 2.
Bill Steele
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/07/15/racist-popeye-cartoon-vanishes-from-the
So if they ran the discussion, what did they put in the 45-minute slot
after it?
It's curious that they pulled it, because it was part of a whole series
they're doing on Hollywood's depiction of Arabs, from The Sheik through
Abbot and Costello Meet the Mummy. There['s racism and stereotyping all
along the way.
And is it "racist" to depict Arabs as wearing turbans and having beards?
I saw this a long time ago and as I recall it was a standard Popeye
adventure, where he finally eats some spinach and beats up the 40
thieves. (Did Bluto play Ali Baba?) My favorite moment was Popeye saying
"Open, sez me."
Anim8rFSK
Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
Ali Baba isn't in the film; Bluto plays Abu Hassan.
This is one of the tabletop 3D Popeyes and considered a classic, if for
not other reason than technical ones. And who cares if there are Arab
thieves? The Arab thieves are attacking innocent Arabs and Popeye goes
to help them. It doesn't portray all Arabs as thieves. This is
bullshit of the lowest order.
rec.arts.movies.past-films added to my reply.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Rich
news:rut027pmr0gm653sb...@4ax.com:
> http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/07/15/racist-popeye-cartoon-vanishes-f
> rom-the-airwaves-with-no-notice-or-acknowledgment-so-watch-it-here-inst
> ead/
>
> Racist Popeye Cartoon Vanishes From The Airwaves With No Notice Or
> Acknowledgment – So Watch It Here Instead
> by Brendon Connelly
>
> TCM in the US were last night scheduled to play Popeye The Sailor
> Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves, a notoriously racist cartoon that
> almost collapses under the weight of its Arab stereotyping. The film
> was made in 1937 when, as far as I know, there wasn’t any particular
> US-Arab conflict or issues that would have brought about such
> propaganda with specific urgency. It just looks like casual, timeless
> racism.
>
> Of course, we’re currently going through a period in US foreign
> relations where this cartoon is particularly potent. If it could ever
> be said to be dangerous, now is likely that time.
Even then they knew what Arabs were.
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
Well, you know, the more they murder, maim, and blow shit up, the less
we're allowed to actually acknowledge that it's happening.
Default User
> I saw this a long time ago and as I recall it was a standard
> Popeye adventure, where he finally eats some spinach and beats up the
> 40 thieves. (Did Bluto play Ali Baba?) My favorite moment was Popeye
> saying "Open, sez me."
Is that the "salami, salami, baloney" one?
Brian
--
Day 890 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: None.
Michael OConnor
> we're allowed to actually acknowledge that it's happening.
The media can acknowledge it is happening, but when it is a person
with a middle eastern name they will often do their best to
conveniently overlook the person's name or country of origin. There
have been several incidents in the news in the past year or so of a
gentlemen who goes berserk on an airline flight and has to be
restrained, and if his name is John Smith it is in the first sentence
of the story, but if it is Rageit al Murisi (who was pounding on the
cockpit door of a plane flying to San Francisco last year) or Ali
Alramakh (who was belligerent with the crew and had to be restrained
on the floor of the plane a couple days back on a flight from the US
to Germany that had to make an emergency landing), his name is often
dropped from the story or is referred to as "an unidentified male" or
buried at the end of the story. This always struck me as odd that
they would refer to a passenger as unidentified, especially since you
have to show identification to get past the TSA checkpoint to board a
plane
Tin Lunchbox
wrote:
>> And is it "racist" to depict Arabs as wearing turbans and having beards?
>> I saw this a long time ago and as I recall it was a standard Popeye
>> adventure, where he finally eats some spinach and beats up the 40
>> thieves. (Did Bluto play Ali Baba?) My favorite moment was Popeye saying
>> "Open, sez me."
>
>Ali Baba isn't in the film; Bluto plays Abu Hassan.
>
>This is one of the tabletop 3D Popeyes and considered a classic, if for
>not other reason than technical ones. And who cares if there are Arab
>thieves? The Arab thieves are attacking innocent Arabs and Popeye goes
>to help them. It doesn't portray all Arabs as thieves.
[text clipped]
I just watched this Popeye cartoon "color feature" (which I take to
mean approximately 15 minutes) and I'm open to being further informed
on the matter (preferably by an Arab or Muslim) but I also don't
particularly notice racism in there.
There's one part where an Arab character speaks and it's just
unintelligible hee-haw gibberish and that could be the basis for some
minor offense to be taken. The reason there are Arab thieves in the
cartoon is because it's incorporating the legend of Ali Baba and the
Forty Thieves. The creators aren't telling us that Arabs are thieves.
In fact there are non-negative (keeping in mind every character is
meant as funny cartoon caricature) Arab characters in the cartoon,
such as the cafe keep and the fruit vendor. And the film's ending is
about Popeye's attempt to bring the stolen goods back to the innocent
Arab village.
It had been a long while since I'd seen a Popeye cartoon. I watched
this on the dominant video sharing website and was impressed with and
amused by it. The transfer was a little blocky and lo-res but the
colors came through nicely. There are some interesting technological
elements to the cartoon that are clearly quite more than hand-drawn
animation, such as the cave opening at the introduction and the
multi-leveled side scrolling at about 12 1/2 minutes in.
TiN[]BoX
Mason Barge
>In article <rut027pmr0gm653sb...@4ax.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/07/15/racist-popeye-cartoon-vanishes-from-the
>> -airwaves-with-no-notice-or-acknowledgment-so-watch-it-here-instead/
[...]
>It's curious that they pulled it, because it was part of a whole series
>they're doing on Hollywood's depiction of Arabs, from The Sheik through
>Abbot and Costello Meet the Mummy. There['s racism and stereotyping all
>along the way.
>
>And is it "racist" to depict Arabs as wearing turbans and having beards?
>I saw this a long time ago and as I recall it was a standard Popeye
>adventure, where he finally eats some spinach and beats up the 40
>thieves. (Did Bluto play Ali Baba?) My favorite moment was Popeye saying
>"Open, sez me."
Yep, that line is the only thing I remember from it. Pretty clever and
even a kid can get it :)
Calling this extremely period cartoon "racist" is absurd. I have always
hated PC nonsense and I'm sorry to see it still running amok. What is so
objectionable? They ride horses? They are thieves? They have curved
swords?
I bet they'd have no problem with a cartoon showing a bunch of old fat
white male bankers lighting cigars with $100 bills.
Thanatos
<9c933754-e20a-40b0...@z14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Michael OConnor <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
It's the same reason racial descriptions of crime suspects are rarely
given on the local news unless the perp is a white guy.
jazzyJack
> Bill Steele wrote:
> > I saw this a long time ago and as I recall it was a standard
> > Popeye adventure, where he finally eats some spinach and beats up the
> > 40 thieves. (Did Bluto play Ali Baba?) My favorite moment was Popeye
> > saying "Open, sez me."
>
> Is that the "salami, salami, baloney" one?
>
No, that must have been Sinbad. I just sat through Ali Baba and the
line wasn't in there.
Default User
Ah, you're probably right. Sinbad does sound more likely.
Brian
--
Day 892 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: None.
Paul
news:98fh92...@mid.individual.net:
> jazzyJack wrote:
>
>> On Jul 15, 6:54 pm, "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Bill Steele wrote:
>> > > I saw this a long time ago and as I recall it was a standard
>> > > Popeye adventure, where he finally eats some spinach and
>> > > beats up the 40 thieves. (Did Bluto play Ali Baba?) My
>> > > favorite moment was Popeye saying "Open, sez me."
>> >
>> > Is that the "salami, salami, baloney" one?
>> >
>>
>> No, that must have been Sinbad. I just sat through Ali Baba and
>> the line wasn't in there.
>
> Ah, you're probably right. Sinbad does sound more likely.
ISTR Popeye saying, "Abou Hassan' got it any more" to Bluto.
--
Paul
Ubiquitous
>It's curious that they pulled it, because it was part of a whole series
>they're doing on Hollywood's depiction of Arabs, from The Sheik through
>Abbot and Costello Meet the Mummy.
I totally forgot TMC was doing this "Arab Month" thing, but as soon
as I saw the promo, I wondered how soon it would be before the baseless
accusations of "racism" would begin, not that them not knowing the
meaning of the word would stop them.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Bill Steele
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
I think this is wise policy, because it deprives racists of fuel for
their prejudices. Otherwise they can say "See? All the people who have
names like that or have that color skin are evil!" ,
Nancy2
> http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/07/15/racist-popeye-cartoon-vanishes...
Arabs are a race? I thought they were an ethnicity.
N.
Dave in Toronto
> In article <atropos-47D04B.09485216072...@news.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9c933754-e20a-40b0-9fbc-cff58656d...@z14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Michael OConnor <mpoconn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, you know, the more they murder, maim, and blow shit up, the less
> > > > we're allowed to actually acknowledge that it's happening.
>
> > > The media can acknowledge it is happening, but when it is a person
> > > with a middle eastern name they will often do their best to
> > > conveniently overlook the person's name or country of origin. There
> > > have been several incidents in the news in the past year or so of a
> > > gentlemen who goes berserk on an airline flight and has to be
> > > restrained, and if his name is John Smith it is in the first sentence
> > > of the story, but if it is Rageit al Murisi (who was pounding on the
> > > cockpit door of a plane flying to San Francisco last year) or Ali
> > > Alramakh (who was belligerent with the crew and had to be restrained
> > > on the floor of the plane a couple days back on a flight from the US
> > > to Germany that had to make an emergency landing), his name is often
> > > dropped from the story or is referred to as "an unidentified male" or
> > > buried at the end of the story. This always struck me as odd that
> > > they would refer to a passenger as unidentified, especially since you
> > > have to show identification to get past the TSA checkpoint to board a
> > > plane
>
> > It's the same reason racial descriptions of crime suspects are rarely
> > given on the local news unless the perp is a white guy.
>
> I think this is wise policy, because it deprives racists of fuel for
> their prejudices. Otherwise they can say "See? All the people who have
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree. I think it's dumb. The Toronto Star here had that policy
a few years ago they would only mention race '..if it was pertinent to
the crime". Fortunately they have dropped it now because it just
didn't work and it hindered the investigations.
Dave M
Topaz
By Luke O'Farrell
"We propose that it be made an offence to download material from the
internet that could incite racial or religious hatred." When it was
claimed that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) made that sinister,
totalitarian proposal in September 2006, you could understand what
George W. Bush meant when he said: "They hate us for our freedoms."
Staunch in defense of freedom, Britain's conservative commentariat
rushed to condemn the MCB. "Free speech is the bedrock of a free
society!" they thundered. "Any group that seeks to undermine it has no
place in a democracy. If Muslims don't like Britain's proud,
centuries-old tradition of free speech, they know what they can do:
get out!"
Shamefully, however, many defenders of Western freedom against
Islamist tyranny seem to have forgotten what the MCB said in 2006. If
you're one of them, here's an extract from The Times to refresh your
memory:
The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was set up last
year. None of the 14 members of the panel is Jewish, but evidence was
taken from across the Jewish community. The report proposes that it be
made an offence to download material from the internet that could
incite racial or religious hatred. Drawing on the view of the
Macpherson report that a racist act is defined by its victim, not by
whether a perpetrator considers himself racist, anti-Semitism is
defined in the report as "any remark, insult or act, the purpose or
effect of which is to violate a Jewish person's dignity or create an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
for him". (Loc. cit., 7th September 2006)
Oh dear, so it wasn't the MCB who wanted to turn us into a
police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who
conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism.
Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free
speech, that's who. If Jews have power and influence, they start
working to take away free speech. It's no use arguing that some Jews
support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect
of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free
speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there
any popular support for Britain's race laws, introduced in the 1960s
and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn't, but what does the
will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies
wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League
would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the
evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn't gotten
them. Canadians haven't been so lucky, as the neo-con Mark Steyn has
discovered. He's gotten into trouble for saying things Muslims don't
like, but let's give him his due: he's admitted that Jews aren't
entirely blameless:
Submission from the Board of Deputies of British Jews
The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomes the opportunity to make
this submission to the Select Committee on Religious Offences. The
Board is the representative body and voice of the British Jewish
community. It was founded in 1760. The Jewish community is covered by
the provisions of the Race Relations Acts. The Board is generally
satisfied with the format of the current legislation following the
amendments to Part 3 of the Public Order Act in the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Malicious Communications Act
1998 and its subsequent amendment offer further protection. Together
these have removed the legal and linguistic barriers which previously
had hampered prosecutions.
The UK is now faced with a growth in inter-religious friction, sparked
in large measure by conflict in the Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent. This has led to the dissemination of propaganda
deliberately attacking Jews qua Jews by Muslims. The Sikh and Hindu
communities have similarly been targeted. We are in touch with
representative bodies within these communities and can provide
examples of such incitement. The Board of Deputies welcomes the
proposal to introduce new laws to combat incitement to religious
hatred, but notes that this must be matched by the political will to
prosecute offenders. Otherwise any new powers risk becoming as
ineffective as the existing laws against incitement to racial hatred.
"It's not enough, already! Ve vont more laws! No free speech for ze
vicked goyim!" And Mark Steyn isn't tackling another vital question:
that of how Muslims got into the West in such large numbers to join
the Jew-initiated, Jew-continued assault on free speech. Was there any
popular support for mass immigration by Muslims in Britain, for
example? No, there wasn't: there was massive popular opposition. But
what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? Britain is run
for the benefit of those who fund its political parties: men like
"Lord" Levy, his pals from Jewish Care, and David Abrahams, whose
excuse for conspiring to make secret payments to New Labour was that
he wanted to avoid the appearance of "a Jewish conspiracy". That's
what democracy means in Britain: Jews pay, pols obey. Want thought
crime laws? You got 'em! Want mass immigration? You got it! Want war
in Iraq? You got that too!
Stone is president of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality
Stone wants to keep "racism" high on the agenda because he wants to
keep bashing whites. How racist is Britain? Very racist - against
whites. When you trace the sources of the "Hammer Honky!" religion,
you find that Jews are there every time, controlling, "advising",
passing laws to suppress white dissent. Free speech is indeed the
bedrock of a free society, which is why free societies and Jews don't
mix. Those are the joys of Judeocracy and they'll keep on coming until
we take our societies back.
Full article at
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/joyim.html
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Anim8rFSK
Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
And of course it doesn't matter if, you know, anybody actually catches a
criminal or anything; it's far more important to be politically correct
than, what's that word? Alive?
Anim8rFSK
<26bc258a-fa9b-494e...@h4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
The Republic stopped saying race (unless it was white) but kept putting
in descriptionsn (black hair, black eyes) and artists sketches that
looked like "Jeffy fills in for Daddy" faces from The Family Circus that
the retarded kid had filled in solid with pencil scratchings.
Ubiquitous
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> Michael OConnor <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > The media can acknowledge it is happening, but when it is a person
>> > with a middle eastern name they will often do their best to
>> > conveniently overlook the person's name or country of origin. There
>> > have been several incidents in the news in the past year or so of a
>> > gentlemen who goes berserk on an airline flight and has to be
>> > restrained, and if his name is John Smith it is in the first sentence
>> > of the story, but if it is Rageit al Murisi (who was pounding on the
>> > cockpit door of a plane flying to San Francisco last year) or Ali
>> > Alramakh (who was belligerent with the crew and had to be restrained
>> > on the floor of the plane a couple days back on a flight from the US
>> > to Germany that had to make an emergency landing), his name is often
>> > dropped from the story or is referred to as "an unidentified male" or
>> > buried at the end of the story. This always struck me as odd that
>> > they would refer to a passenger as unidentified, especially since you
>> > have to show identification to get past the TSA checkpoint to board a
>> > plane
>>
>> It's the same reason racial descriptions of crime suspects are rarely
>> given on the local news unless the perp is a white guy.
>
>I think this is wise policy, because it deprives racists of fuel for
>their prejudices. Otherwise they can say "See? All the people who have
>names like that or have that color skin are evil!" ,
TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Thanatos
Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
Doesn't help overly much in, you know, catching the frakkin' criminal,
though, does it?
But hey, that concern (and all others) are apparently secondary to being
politically correct and avoiding offense at all costs.
Thanatos
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> > I disagree. I think it's dumb. The Toronto Star here had that policy
> > a few years ago they would only mention race '..if it was pertinent to
> > the crime". Fortunately they have dropped it now because it just
> > didn't work and it hindered the investigations.
> The Republic stopped saying race (unless it was white) but kept putting
> in descriptionsn (black hair, black eyes) and artists sketches that
> looked like "Jeffy fills in for Daddy" faces from The Family Circus that
> the retarded kid had filled in solid with pencil scratchings.
LOL