Let's have a more focused discussion/debate/argument about the benefits and downsides of censorship, the historical record and the perfidious reinforcing of certain mindsets either through (re)presenting the missteps of the past or attempting to erase them retroactively - or both.
Comics (TV, movies, books, paintings, statues) have been produced during many periods of social and ethical upheaval, and necessarily therefore contain elements that chaff, offend or horrify a more modern (enlightened?) audience.
Lois Lane and other characters either wore blackface or were literally race swapped - sometimes for shock value, sometimes to start a conversation, usually to attempt to address inequality, if often in a manner that does not sit well with a modern audience.
The Spirit had a racially insensitive, stereotypically depicted sidekick; Green Lantern, too. As stereotypes get challenged, and modes of depiction of minorities and differences evolve and become more nuanced, certain cartoonish exaggerations or opatterns of speech are often retroactively deemed taboo and either rewritten, or censored or just ignored.
Recent Scrooge and Donald comics have left out stories, re-drawn or reworded panels and/or appended warning about cultural and racial insensitivity in the past.
The French Connection has had a particularly offensive word snippped from digital presentations; statues seen to be glorifying the Confederacy have been torn down or rehomed, American football teams and military installations have been renamed.
Clearly, there are degrees. Clearly different situations and content can be - and is - treated differently. And similar things can be treated differently by different companies in different contexts.
There can be no 'one size fits all' solution. And in an ideal world, it is the audience who takes the lead in self-censoring or bringing a nuanced understanding to bear on the changing societal mores. But, that requires a lot of faith in humanity as well as greater sense than many exhibit.
In America especially, there are pseudo-political mindsets at play. "The Right" claims to want to be anti-censorship, sometimes using such arguments as a cover for allowing the perpetuation of bigotry and stereotypes. "The Left" claims to want to be so tolerant and inoffensive that it will cheerfully scrub any possible problematic content while also adding 'diversity' regardless of sense. Meanwhile, in (hilarious?) displays of hypocrisy and wrongheadedness, the same anti-censorship brigade aims to erase certain undesirable content and remove books from libraries, while the more liberal and accepting groups allegedly seek to impose Only Their Views on everyone.
Some behaviors belong in the past. Some behaviors should be handled very carefully in media depictions. Some tales and scenes from the past have no business being glorified or reprinted or shown... and yet, if modern audiences do not address and confront the realities of the past (both Actual and Stereotypically-presented), what hope for the future?
Comics (TV, movies, books, paintings, statues) have been produced during many periods of social and ethical upheaval, and necessarily therefore contain elements that chaff, offend or horrify a more modern (enlightened?) audience.
Lois Lane and other characters either wore blackface or were literally race swapped - sometimes for shock value, sometimes to start a conversation, usually to attempt to address inequality, if often in a manner that does not sit well with a modern audience.
The Spirit had a racially insensitive, stereotypically depicted sidekick; Green Lantern, too. As stereotypes get challenged, and modes of depiction of minorities and differences evolve and become more nuanced, certain cartoonish exaggerations or opatterns of speech are often retroactively deemed taboo and either rewritten, or censored or just ignored.
Recent Scrooge and Donald comics have left out stories, re-drawn or reworded panels and/or appended warning about cultural and racial insensitivity in the past.
The French Connection has had a particularly offensive word snippped from digital presentations; statues seen to be glorifying the Confederacy have been torn down or rehomed, American football teams and military installations have been renamed.
Clearly, there are degrees. Clearly different situations and content can be - and is - treated differently. And similar things can be treated differently by different companies in different contexts.
There can be no 'one size fits all' solution. And in an ideal world, it is the audience who takes the lead in self-censoring or bringing a nuanced understanding to bear on the changing societal mores. But, that requires a lot of faith in humanity as well as greater sense than many exhibit.
In America especially, there are pseudo-political mindsets at play. "The Right" claims to want to be anti-censorship, sometimes using such arguments as a cover for allowing the perpetuation of bigotry and stereotypes. "The Left" claims to want to be so tolerant and inoffensive that it will cheerfully scrub any possible problematic content while also adding 'diversity' regardless of sense. Meanwhile, in (hilarious?) displays of hypocrisy and wrongheadedness, the same anti-censorship brigade aims to erase certain undesirable content and remove books from libraries, while the more liberal and accepting groups allegedly seek to impose Only Their Views on everyone.
Some behaviors belong in the past. Some behaviors should be handled very carefully in media depictions. Some tales and scenes from the past have no business being glorified or reprinted or shown... and yet, if modern audiences do not address and confront the realities of the past (both Actual and Stereotypically-presented), what hope for the future?
statistics: Posted by ntnonII — 7:49 AM - 1 day ago — Replies 20 — Views 348