Looney Tunes
November 8, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
In my last post (I know, it seems like so long ago!), I promised I would give you an example of the conspiracy theories that are promoted in the Islamic world.
Here it is (from “Iran TV: 'Pirates of Caribbean' a Zionist plot” on WorldNetDaily.com):
Prof. Hasan Bolkhari, a cultural adviser to the Iranian Education Ministry, told
“If you study European history, you will see who was the main power to hoard money and wealth in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. … Watch 'Schindler's List.' Every Jew was forced to wear a yellow star on his clothing. The Jews were degraded and termed 'dirty mice.' Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice.”
When I first read that excerpt, I admit I chuckled. But then I watched the actual video provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)–an organization that posts English translations of Middle Eastern television on their website.
It's extremely disturbing. Something you'd only expect to see in a black-and-white clip from sixty years ago. Unfortunately, because we're living in our prosperous, free bubble, we can't fathom what's going on out there in the world's media, and so we underestimate its power. But make no mistake, there will be repercussions today just as there were sixty years ago.
I can't stress enough how dangerous these lies are to the stability of the world. I urge you to watch the full video clip (and more) here so you can understand what we'll be dealing with in the years to come.
Related posts:
- Yippee, Kids! It Is the Time of Death!
- Behold the Wonder
- Must Watch and Read
- Who Created God?
- The "Hitler Charm"
- A Sincere Question
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics
content rss
November 8th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Amy, I am intrigued by a specific issue that arises from your post: A seeming lack of belief that allegory through film, TV, and even cartoons, can be a method by which the collective cultural conscious undergoes ideological alteration. I admittedly have not extensively researched 'Tom and Jerry', consulted the authors' intentions regarding the show, etc. However, it appears likewise that you have not done such research from the content of your post, or it would have been appropriate to cite the author's clear intentions now [that the Jews' public ethos had no influence on the content of the show]. Such information, were it to be true, would have buttressed your case. However, you just said you “chuckled” at the possibility, and this appears to be an outright dismissal of the Middle Easterners' claims that [as the show originated in 1940] it sought to curb the view of Jews as 'dirty mice' through the portrayal of a cute and cunning cartoon mouse that always gets the best of the cat. I'm curious as to whether you would suggest Richard Adam's 'Watership Down' [which lent itself to taking the form of a cartoon in 1978] does not make direct and obvious allusions to the atrocities committed by the Third Reich. The picture has widely been argued as the allegorical portrayal and condemnation of the Nazis, and I am wondering whether it is truly that unbelievable that film, cartoons, etc., use an altogether different strategy to build up other groups through allegorical narrative. Again, I haven't done the specific research, but I would be a little less quick to dismiss something so outright when dealing with a subject such as the potential for subtlety in manifesting political agenda through the arts.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Diran…are you serious?
November 8th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
I'm not quite sure why it would be difficult to take seriously the claim that political ideas would enter into cartoons, film, tv, art. You seem to be denying even the possiblility of such a linkage.
Do you really think these shows are just cute little stories? To me, in fairness, that premise is in actuality the one hard to fathom. Tweety [1942] and his “gwama, gwama, I tah I saw a puddy cat” seems a commentary on political matters, in particular the internment camps. The yellow [mind the color] bird hangs out in a cage, safe from danger. The nuances of sfaety versus danger always unfold when the yellow bird is outside the enclosure. Could this be a potential spin on the 1944 verdict evaluating the move upon the Japanese as constitutional and justified? I think there is room for such a case. Art has historically used subtlety to imbue its works with political content. Just ask Lucas, even if you do not agree with his politics. And again, it is hard to present a detailed argument that denies the aggressive rabbits of 'Watership Down' as a surrogate or metonymy for the Natzis. Is it not?
Am I serious? Well, I suppose a better question is: why would we even doubt that these media outlets would refrain from the temptation to inscribe ideology within their narratives? I all seriousness, an answer must be provided.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Well said. While it's hard to say, “amen” when there's not much asserted, I like the way you fashioned your comment. Some well-dressed thought.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Just to be clear, are you saying that you think it's possible that the creators of Tom and Jerry did create the show for the purpose of improving the image of mice because Jews were called “dirty mice” in Europe and they wished for their association with mice to be a positive one? So possible, in fact, that you think I need to come up with an argument against it before you'll dismiss it?
November 8th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
The Smurfs and communism.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Well, what is the alternative? That [and I say this with respect] we just dismiss it with chuckles? How else to dismiss it than with argument, given the other items I have noted?
But that is the problem. It seems we have a situation of avoiding one another's questions in this thread. I have asked twice now whether you believe 'Watership Down' would count as an instance of metonymy concerning the Nazis. You provided no reply. I have asked whether cartoons or film in general have the potential to carry ideological postures into the mainstream subtly [a similarly phrased question]. You counter by avoiding these questions and asking whether I think in this instance it is possible [the truth? The actuality?] that it was Jerry's intended purpose to be a rebuttal to mid-twentieth century Euro-aggression toward Jews. I say my answer is 'yes' in this instance, that Jerry very well could have been used and put into existence in 1940 for that very purpose [of course amongst other purposes, including capital and entertainment]. I am mentioning now, again, that you cannot just dismiss something with only a version of common sense as support for a belief when we do know unequivocally that it has been common practice within all art forms to use structures of metonymy to sway public perception [Lucas' has admitted this full-heartedly for his Star Wars, and has noted several narratives which have influenced him which have done likewise].
We are dealing with structures of metonymy. Simply stated, metonymic structures pit one thing as a surrogate for something else. There is usually some conflation involved: a flag represents an entire country, which is of course comprised of an enormous amount of individual elements like people [races, economic backgrounds, etc.], cities, communities, objects, demarcated spaces, governments, markets, etc., etc., etc, which are all reduced to a simple flag and its colorful arrangement. The flag stands in for the entire extremely complex entity.
The Iranian professor Bolkhari maintained that the text 'dirty mice' had become a prevalent textual surrogate for the Jewish community. [Jews are obviously not literal mice that are filthy]. Jews and the concept of a dirty mouse were thus conflated in the effort to demonize the Jews much in the same way that making Darth Vader quote Bush several times served to demonize the person of whom he was quoting [in this case our President, for we know that Anakin was to succumb to evil and the "Dark Side"]. How to counter such things? The question is an artistic one: Transform and reconfigure the metonym. Change the allusion or the stand-in that represents the group or thing, in this case, the concept of Jewishness. If one presents [note that this is not necessarily logical but tends toward the artistic: "presents", provides an instance/image of, etc.] that mice are not dirty, but rather are cute and give us warm fuzzies, then this can negate the potential automatic negative allusion to mice. If you instead conjoin cute nice mice and Jews, we have a different ideological outcome.
With the enormity of evidence that artists, filmmakers, etc., have used such structures in the past, it makes this sort of thing up for debate. Chuckling is one thing, but not enough, and calls for the need of further consideration. One can’t just say with any sort of lubricated philosophical ease – given the timing of Tom and Jerry as well as the show’s content – that it is all just a cute little story.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
If this conversation does continue, I am fascinated to watch it. I respect the intellect and character of both Amy and Diran, though their ideological viewpoints are so different I watch with some trepidation.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
“One can't just say with any sort of lubricated philosophical ease – given the timing of Tom and Jerry as well as the show's content – that it is all just a cute little story.”
Watch me:
Tom & Jerry is a frickin cartoon.
But seriously, the fact that artists can and often do use such methods does in no way entail (1) that the makers of a cartoon had this in mind when they created the cat and mouse, nor does it entail (2) that it somehow falls to Amy to prove that they were not trying to make a connection. Where is the evidence that they intended to make such a connection?
November 8th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
There is no criteria for evidence that I think we could agree on. Besides, further complicating this is that most of the time artists are more subtle than is Lucas, for example. Being obvious is the killjoy of artists, the mark of a bad artist or filmmaker actually. That stated…I haven't said anything here that has been proven [i.e., I haven't proven anything], nor have I mandated that Amy has to do anything that she doesn't wish to do. The burden of proof falls in cases like these on anyone who wishes to assume it. The fact that there is a burden of proof at all is what I am suggesting indicates that there cannot be refutations by chuckling. … I guess in this case it is as Bill has stated: that our positions are greatly different on this matter as is evident that I am willing to leave the door open to the possibility that there is political content influencing much of the stuff that is out there in mainstream artistic disciplines [which lines up with much of my experience in the field] potentially inclusive of Tom and Jerry due to the things noted by the professor, and she is willing to say with confidence something is just a cartoon. I personally believe one strategy is a bit more charitable, better than calling someone a looney tune in any event, and that is all I have to say from this point onward on the matter.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:17 am
“There is no criteria for evidence that I think we could agree on.”
Actually, if documentation showed that Hanna and Barbera intended the mouse to have such a meaning, then it would count as evidence. Without direct evidence of such intent, however, any interpretation is nothing more than rampant speculation, and, depending on the content of the alleged hidden meaning (in this case, a Jewish conspiracy), open to ridicule. Tom & Jerry is cartoon until proven otherwise.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Tom & Jerry is a cartoon until proven otherwise.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:29 am
And what would count as a document? You must certainly know that specific events take place without being properly documented. Does that mean that these certain events did not take place? If Lucas does not state openly to Vader being an intended surrogate for Bush, does that mean the similarities between the two figures is just a coincidence until properly documented?
This largely was a discussion between Amy and I, as it was the result of a post she wrote…and after the steps we have made I must refuse to discuss any further.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:41 am
BILL, that really does mean a lot to me–thank you! I'm sorry to disappoint you by saying that I'm not planning on continuing the conversation. I never argue just to argue, and since it seems to me that this is one of those things where one either sees the absurdity or one doesn't, I'm not going to spend time arguing about it.
DIRAN, if we lose our ability to use common sense as a society, we're doomed. I feel confident in saying that Tom and Jerry is not Watership Down, it's not Animal Farm, and it's not a Jewish conspiracy. It's not even a product of Disney, as they claim.
TIM, you said, “Without direct evidence of such intent, however, any interpretation is nothing more than rampant speculation.” Exactly. Which is why the interpretation says much more about the person speculating (i.e., the professor) than about the cartoon itself. The fact that they read Jewish conspiracies into everything (look through the website) is cause for alarm.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Diran, I understand the reluctance to discuss this further.
However, I would like to ask a question which need not be answered here yet I think deserves serious consideration:
What is the difference between a cartoon created for the purpose of entertainment that has no intentional, hidden meaning, and a cartoon created for the purpose of using hidden meanings to make a point? All the evidence you give for the conclusion that there is an intentional hidden meaning to Tom & Jerry is circumstantial. Every instance of metonymy can be explained by other factors (e.g., the bird was yellow because canaries are yellow). Empirically, there is no difference between the two interpretations, and thus other factors must justify accepting one conclusion in place of another. Are Hanna and Barbera part of a Jewish conspiracy, or were they animators who made a cartoon?
November 9th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I don't have a problem with discussing, as long as the tone remains professional and honors that friendship is most important. I felt the tone was getting heated, and therefore wanted to refrain. I will offer these comments with professionalism and respect:
You are completely right that the points raised in your most recent post deserve consideration. I did give thought to ones like them prior to entering this conversation. I had to determine that what I was putting forward as metonymical exchanges were potentially for the purpose of persuasion or societal influence, and not merely and unequivocally entertainment for its own sake. I had to first decide whether I thought it was plausible that what the professor stated in terms of a Jewish conspiracy were elements worth considering as ingredients in a semiotic system conducive to the production of such a conspiracy, regardless of whether the professor claimed [quite wrongly] that Disney was both the author of Tom and Jerry as well as a Jew. In other words, his key claims which address metonymic slippage in the effort to assist the Jews' public ethos must be challenged on their own merit.
I have previously maintained that it is “plausible” that these cartoon shows sought to alter public opinion, but not that it is “certain” they intended to do so. I have further stated that my position in most cases is that absence of proof is not proof of absence, or more formally stated: A logical fallacy occurs when one posits 'X is true because there is no proof that X is false.' For a related example: That Lucas' intention was for Vader to be Bush's surrogate is true irrespective of the fact that Lucas told us Vader = Bush, and such is true up and to the point that had Lucas not mentioned it, he still intended it, and it is therefore the case [we merely have no access to that information in a documented form...if a tree falls in a forest...].
Most importantly, you state that “every instance of metonymy can be explained by other factors ( e.g., the bird was yellow because canaries are yellow).” However, there are other factors further still that prevent me from saying absolutely – as Amy and you do – that political motivations do not reside behind the cartoon images in question. Among these other factors, in the Tweety case for instance: his color and quasi-Japanese speech impediments are striking when we consider that the original sketches called for a pink bird. What can account for this important color change? Or asked differently: What can account for this change in a historical time when the Japanese were still referred to as yellow, “Indians” as red, etc? This change, coupled with the other characteristics of the cartoon [amongst the previously mentioned: locked in a cage safe from danger, 1942 as the cartoon's starting point - concurrent with the internment camps initiation, etc], lead me to conclude that there *might* be something else going on behind the scenes. These things all could be coincidences, but I cannot bring myself – given the quantity of alleged coincidences – to pull the trigger and call it 'just a cute cartoon.' I have not proven anything; I just remain unconvinced by the absolute proposition of the cartoons as “just cute stories.”
[For the record, I think 'conspiracy' is the wrong word. If I make a project that attacks Bush on a subtle level, using metonymy like Lucas did, I am a conspirator? If someone makes a cartoon with a yellow Tweety and actually did intend it to change opinion about whether the Japanese Americans should have been placed in internment camps for their own good and safety, he is a conspirator? This line of reasoning would seem to render an enormous percentage of political artists in the 20th and 21st centuries as conspirators. Finally, the concept we have not considered here yet is that some of these cartoon shows could have been influenced by the politics of that day or attempted to mirror some of its structures, but were not trying to be a polemic regarding the politics of that day. Thus, no conspiracy, but only the reflection of the influence of political events upon the cartoon subject matter].
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
[...] I guess they got the idea for this from the Jews’ evil plan to use Tom and Jerry… [...]