Comments on: Looney Tunes

By: Yippee, Kids! It Is the Time of Death! | The A-Team Blog

Yippee, Kids! It Is the Time of Death! | The A-Team Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 03:58:23 +0000

[…] I guess they got the idea for this from the Jews’ evil plan to use Tom and Jerry… […]

By: TDLIII

TDLIII — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:27:12 +0000

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].

By: Timbo

Timbo — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:49:24 +0000

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?

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:41:20 +0000

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.

By: TDLIII

TDLIII — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:29:22 +0000

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.

By: Timbo

Timbo — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:18:46 +0000

Tom & Jerry is a cartoon until proven otherwise.

By: Timbo

Timbo — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:17:47 +0000

“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.

By: TDLIII

TDLIII — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:42:32 +0000

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.

By: Timbo

Timbo — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:08:40 +0000

“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?

By: Bill Ekhardt

Bill Ekhardt — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:52:58 +0000

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.