The Role of Racism in the History of Cartoons
please be advised this essay addresses a number of offensive and hurtful matters and those choosing to read further should do so with a degree of caution.
American animation is a true wonder and has delighted fans young and old for over a hundred years. Although these cartoons are terrific, imaginative and fun, the history of American animation is fraught with racist content (both overt and covert) that is important not to sweep aside and overlook. There is much to celebrate in terms of cartoons, yet it would be a great disservice to not also explore the ways in which racism and bigotry has shaped animation, its content and characters.
Minstrelsy and The Steamboat Sambos
The roots of racism in animation grew from the huge popularity of minstrel shows throughout the mid 1800s and into the twentieth century. Also known as minstrelsy, these were stage shows in which white actors would wear blackface make-up and perform comedy skits and musical numbers lampooning Black identity and culture.
These shows stereotyped Black people as happy fools dancing and singing... as dimwitted subhumans who were lazy and superstitious. A recurring character in these shows was ‘Jim Crow,’ a grotesque and exaggerated portrayal of a Black man who was docile, subservient, soulful and happy to sing and dance. The name Jim Crow would go on to become synonymous with anti-Black sentiment throughout the post-Reconstruction era in American history.
Minstrel performances tended to consist of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and musical performances. Slapstick comedy, pratfalls and violent hi jinx were standard fare. Mistral characters endured repetitive and brutal violence with no consequences. These shows aimed to confirm racist beliefs that Black people were in some way, shape or form not-quite-human and need not be treated as equals nor viewed with sympathy or compassion.
Following the Civil War, minstrelsy's popularity declined significantly. By the turn of the 20th century, the minstrel show had all but disappeared, having been replaced for the most part by Vaudeville Theatre. Despite minstrel shows' decline into obscurity, racist characters and themes carried over into newer media: movies, television and cartoons.
Early animated films, such as Friz Freleng’s Bosco, Walt Disney’s’ Steamboat Willy, Ub Iwerks’ Little Black Sambo and others, were each heavily influenced by the aesthetics, themes and structure of the minstrel show. Large eyes, white gloves and an accentuated smiling mouth were all but a trademark of the Jim Crow style caricature; and many cartoon characters borrowed heavily from this look.
Furthermore the silly, happy-go-lucky singing and dancing in many early cartoons can be seen as lifted from minstrel performances. Indeed there were even cartoons that were direct adaptations of minstrelsy staples. For instance, the 1933 Disney short Mickey's Mellerdrammer, saw Micky Mouse apply blackface so to perform a mistral sendup of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’
Other examples of minstrelsy's carry-over into cartoons include a recurring gag where a character is blown up, leaving their face blackened by soot or whatnot. Herein, their white eyes, blackened face and somehow unaffected lips made them look like a mistral character (this was usually accompanied by the musical score adding in a touch of traditional mistral songs, like ‘Swanee River’ or ‘Camptown Races’).
The violence in many cartoons, and the ways in which the characters are only temporarily impacted, is also lifted from the minstrel show. Such shows had scenes in which slave characters were treated with exaggerated brutally... and yet were unaffected in the next moment. The message here being that Black people are somehow inhuman and that hurting or torturing them has no long-lasting consequences.
This trope of over-the-top slapstick violence crossed over into Vaudeville sketches and cartoons. For example, Tom the Cat would have a bowling ball dropped on his head or Wilie E. Coyote would be blown up by a stick of dynamite… and in the next scene the characters were perfectly fine as if magically healed. Of course exaggerated violence as entertainment is by no means exclusive to minstrelsy, yet the influence of minstrel-style violence in cartoons is quite evident and (to a certain extent) continues to this day.
This basic concept of Black people possessing different capacities to endure injury or pain have unfortunately persisted for decades continuing to the here and now. In 2016 the National Academy of Sciences conducted a large-scale survey of white medical students and found that just over half of those surveyed erroneously perceived Black patients as feeling less pain compared to white patients; and were more likely to suggest inappropriate medical treatment for Black patients. Of course there are many other factors that have contributed to this hugely harmful misconception, yet the comical violence of the minstrel show and its carryover into cartoons can certainly be seen as playing a role.
Another element that transitioned from minstrelsy to cartoons has been characters wearing white gloves. The ignominious icon of Jim Crow was often portrayed as a ‘house slave,’ decked out in a butler style outfit including a pair of pristine white gloves. Similar gloves can be found on dozens of cartoon characters, from Micky Mouse and Bugs Bunny to more contemporary characters like Sonic The Hedgehog, The Warner Siblings and Mario the Plummer.
Animating hands is difficult and providing a character with distinct, uncolored hands probably makes it less arduous. As such, the prevalence of white hands/gloves in cartoons may have more to do with saving time and money as oppose to propagating racist attitudes. Yet it does not change the matter that its initial inspiration likely originated from the mistral aesthetic.
The sad truth is that animation throughout much of the twentieth century, just the same as radio, television, Vaudeville and Hollywood, was unbothered by racist stereotypes and would often lean on them for a cheap and easy laugh. The Merrie Melodies director Friz Freleng was reported to have said that poking fun at ethnic groups had always spelled success for a cartoon short. In other words, audiences appeared to enjoy cartoons with racist overtones and the studios (who were doggedly competing with one another) were not going to let ethics or doing the right thing stand in the way of making a profit and staying in business.
Or it is perhaps just as likely that the creators and directors simply did not think much on the matter. For instance, in the 1940 Disney feature Dumbo, the eponymous elephant meets a group of jive-talking crows. The leader of this group is named ‘Jim Crow.’ ...why name the crow Jim? One assumes that it was meant for a quick and cheap laugh. And little thought was given to the fact that these relatively unimportant characters would likely ruin the fun of the movie for an entire subsection of those watching it.
Indeed, Dumbo has since been partially re-dubbed with Jim Crow’s name changed to Dandy Crow and the crows’ dialogue toned down. Such an easy fix was not possible for Disney’s follow up feature, The Song of the South.
Premiering in 1946, The Song of the South was a mixed live-action animated movie ostensibly narrated by the mystical figure of Uncle Remus. Portrayed by actor James Baskett, Uncle Remus is a former slave still living on a plantation who befriends a little white boy named Johnny who is struggling with his parents' impending divorce. Uncle Remus delights Johnny with African folk tales about Br'er Rabbit and the Tar-Baby and, as he speaks, the characters magically come to life in animated form. Through these stories, and catchy songs like ‘Zippity Doo Dah,’ Uncle Remus is able to make little Johnny feel better.
Having Black men make white kids feel better was in essence the goal of Song of the South. It offered up a sanitized version of slavery constructed to absolve the South and the country as a whole of guilt... whilst at the same time reenforcing the idea of Black people as subservient, jovial, and not at all dissatisfied with their circumstances.
Furthermore, Remus’ special abilities (his being one of the first of the cinematic trope of the 'magical negro') underscores the tradition of presenting Black people as something other than entirely human. Just as it was with the minstrel shows, showing Black people as somehow inhuman eases guilt over slavery and institutionalized racism. Disney has since removed Song of The South from its catalog and the movie is not available to be viewed in any of the company’s official platforms.
The 1939 short, The Little Lion Hunter, introduced the character of Inkie who would go on to star in several more films. Inkie was an African child with dark brown skin, large white eyes, a button-nose and a wide lips. His look was prototypical of the ‘pickaninny’ character endemic to minstrel shows. And yet Chuck Jones, the creator and director of the Inkie shorts, contended that the character was not intended to be offensive or derogatory toward Black people. Jones stated that he ‘grew up sensitive to the feeling of minorities’ and never set out to mock them; saying instead that Inkie was meant as an 'everyman character' whom audiences could relate to regardless of their race.
Inkie was indeed the hero of the stories he appeared and arguably a relatable character. Yet there is just no way around the problematics of his appearance... it is impossible to not be reminded of the dehumanizing cruelty of his mistral roots. At the time, Inkie was a very well received character and, had he been a cartoon mouse or a cat or some others animal, it is quite possible he would have continued on in the Merrie Melodies stable of characters going on to be as fondly remembered as Daffy Duck or Porky Pig. Yet that was not the case and Warner Bros' cartoons dropped the use of racist caricatures near the end of the 1940s. The Inkie shorts were all shelved and have never appeared in syndicated formate.
Aliens Attack! Cartoons Take On The Yellow Peril
In the wake of America’s entry into the Second World War, racist caricatures of Black people in cartoons took a back seat to those levied at the Japanese. And the same basic templates for poking fun at Black people were easily applied to Asians where otherwise subtle differences in physical appearance were accentuated to such an extreme as to become grotesque. The bulging eyes and oversized lips of the Jim Crow-style pastiche was replaced with slanted eyes, yellow skin, thick-rimmed glasses and bucked teeth.
Asian characters had sparsely appeared in American cartoons prior to World War II, often shown wearing conical hats or with a queued hairstyle. The deceptions were far from respectful, yet perhaps not as outright hateful as the cartoon stereotypes of Black people. This changed dramatically with the attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into the the war.
A prime example of this can be found in the 1944 Merrie Melodies film, ‘Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips.’ Directed by Freleng, it shows Bugs happening upon an island in the South Pacific where he encounters a Japanese soldier. Although shown to be a formidable combatant, the soldier is terribly offensive: bow-legged, with a simian face, thick glasses and a pronounced diastema… blathering on with an exaggerated accent. Mickey Rooney’s disgraceful performance of Mr. Yunioshi in the 1961 film ‘Breakfast and Tiffany’s’ was all but a near-exact rift on Bugs' adversary in this cartoon.
Later in this same short, Bugs faces off against a witless sumo wrestler whom the rabbit manages to befuddle by dressing himself up as a geisha. Altogether a veritable cornucopia of mockery in which the Japanese people, appearance and customs are all systemically lampooned and belittled.
Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips debuted in theaters right around the same time that the case of Korematsu v. United States was being heard by the United States Supreme Court. The case addressed the constitutionality of internment camps where Japanese Americans were detained throughout the war. The cartoon was a huge hit with audiences, perhaps offering up a balm for a collective guilty conscious over thousands of American citizens having been rounded up and interned based solely on their ethnic heritage.
Dehumanizing an enemy through propaganda has long since been a crucial facet to military (and political) strategy. The idea being that young soldiers would have less qualms about killing their fellow man if they could be made to view the enemy as substantially different, as something alien or less than fully human. The tactic was echoed during the Viet Nam War, perhaps best encapsulated by a repugnant quote from US general and MACV commander, William Westmoreland, who said: “The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a Westerner… We value life and human dignity. They don’t care about life and human dignity.”
Cartoons staring Popeye, Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny, facing off against these weird and alien caricatures of Asian people underscored the notion that these people were different, had different values and were exempt from the base idea of the sanctity of life.
Offensive stereotypes of Asians in cartoons did not discontinue with the end of the war. Racist gags made for cheap, easy laughs and the studios were reluctant to let it go. As such, Asian characters (or Asian-coded characters) were frequently depicted as exotic and sinister or bucktoothed buffoons.
The difference between Japan, China, Korea and the other nations of Asia did not appear to be a matter of consideration. All Asian people were obsessively subsumed into this central cartoon archetype.
Over time this has dissipated. Large studios like Disney, MGM and Dreamworks have a highly vested interest in the overseas Asian market, especially China where animated films can draw staggering profits. With this in mind, it is possible that the move to retire overtly offensive Asian stereotypes in cartoons may have been more of a fiscal decision than it was a moral one.
The matter is slightly diffuse in the context of the broader Pan Asian demographic. It was quite rare to see people from India, Pakistan, Egypt, the Middle East or Hawaii in older cartoons. More often than not, preexisting characters would act as stand-ins within the cultural settings (such as having Bugs Bunny donned up like an Arabian Sheik or Goofy doing a hula dance in Hawaii).
A notable exception is the character of Mowgli in Disney’s The Jungle Book. Mowgi is the protagonist, a very cool character and by no means represents a negative stereotype. At the same time, however, Disney’s Jungle Book is based on Rudyard Kipling’s adaptation of Mowgi’s tale. A good argument can be made that Kipling’s retelling of the story can be interpreted as a colonial metaphor for England’s view of India (with Mowgli in the role of the British and the animals as the native Indians).
¡Ándale Arriba! Stereotypes Head South of The Boarder
Speedy Gonzales, the fastest mouse in all of Mexico, debuted in a 1953 Merrie Melodies short entitled ‘Cat-Tails for Two.’ Directed by Robert McKimson and written by Tedd Pierce, the film entailed two dim-witted cats who encounter a mouse from Mexico who possesses super speed and is as clever as he is fast. Voiced by Mel Blanc, Speedy had a thick Chicano accent (something of a more hurried version of a character Blanc created for the Jack Benny show called ‘Sy, the Little Mexican’).
The name ‘Speedy Gonzales’ was possibly derived from a 1950s-era anti-Mexican sex joke. He was heroic, yet in a fashion similar to Robin Hood (a heroic thief). And his fellow Mexican mice were shown as lazy and feckless, entirely dependent on Speedy’s prowess and wit.
Speedy’s accent and his outfit (composed of an extra-large, yellow sombrero, white shirt and trousers and a red kerchief) quickly became the de-facto means of portraying Mexicans in cartoons. Animated shorts such as ‘Two Crows from Tacos’ and ‘Tijuana Toads’ essentially aped how Speedy Gonzales was portrayed. A significant difference, however, is that Speedy was clever and fast, while subsequent characters, like the Tijuana Toads, were shown as lazy and dim.
While there were many Mexican animal characters like Speedy Gonzales and Panchito Pistoles, human characters who are Mexican or LatinX were almost nonexistent in the earlier years of American animation. There were background humans in productions such as The Three Caballeros or Picador Porky, but few if any were the focus of a cartoon or even named. An exception being the absurdly offensive cartoon mascot for Fritos corn chips, Frito Bandito.
Fritos retired their mascot in 1971, bowing to uproar over its racist nature. Warner Brothers chose to follow suit in the late 1980s and discontinued shorts featuring Speedy Gonzales. In 1990, these cartoons were pulled from syndication. This decision was vehemently protested by many Mexican-Americans and Latino groups. Organized petitions insisted that Speedy was a positive character and a treasured cultural icon. The League of United Latin American Citizens even presented an official declaration calling for Speedy’s return.
Warner Brothers caved to the pressure and Speedy was brought back. The shorts returned to syndication and even a couple new cartoons were produced. Writing for Mexico News Daily, journalist Monica Belot referred to Speedy Gonzales as “The mouse that outran cancel culture.”
Ugh-a-Wugg: Native Americans in Cartoons
First appearing as a segment in the Underdog Show, The Go-Go-Gofers were something of a Native American iteration of Speedy Gonzales. They were the heroes of the show, intrepid, ingenious and always victorious over their ineffectual rival, Colonel Kit Coyote of U.S. Cavalry. While heroic, the gofers were nonetheless offensive stereotypes of the Native American people. Both were adorned in brown tunics with feathered headdresses. One spoke in a crazed, nonsensical gibberish while the other interpreted in pidgin-English with a slow, monotone drawl.
This was the general way in which Native Americans have been depicted in animation throughout most of the twentieth century. The basic template composed of red-toned skin, a large nose, warpaint, ponytailed hair and feathered headbands. Such examples can be found in the 1937 Merrie Melodies short Sweet Sioux, the 1948 Popeye short Wigwam Whoopee, and the 1953 Disney animated movie Peter Pan.
Outside of the physical exaggerations, it was not a particularly malicious stereotype (especially when compared to those depicting Black or Asian people). More so it lacks any depth or curiosity regarding the Native American people, their cultural practices and traditions. In short, it is disrespectful and a needless lampooning of a people who have received terrible treatment and the rawest of deals by European colonization.
In the 1948 Loony Tunes short, A Feather in His Hare, a young Native American hunts for Bugs Bunny. The cartoon is similar to the many Bugs versus Elmer Fudd fare, only with the unnamed Mohican hunter in the place of Fudd. Appearance-wise, he is no more or less a parody than characters like Fudd or Yosemite Sam ...rather it is his pidgin-English dialogue that is most objectionable (and likely the reason why A Feather in His Hare has been left out of syndication and is one of the very few Bugs Bunny cartoons not to be included in home media compendiums).
“Me hunting waa-bit” the hunter states, accompanied by some odd and nonsensical sign language, “but me haven’t found waa-bit.” This same shtick is also used with Asian and Latin American characters; poking fun at those who have learned a whole second language but have yet to master it.
On a cognitive level, the capacity to take in, comprehend and speak a second language is a hugely impressive achievement. Indeed, many of the languages and dialects of Native American peoples were so dissimilar from European languages that soldiers of the Navajo Nation were utilized as ‘code-talkers’ transporting secret battle strategies during the First and Second World Wars ...All of this amazing linguistic acumen belittled for a cheap laugh.
Such cheap laughs were a commodity for characters like Bugs Bunny, and Indigenous peoples made for an easy target. Along with lampooning Native Americans, Bugs also had offensive confrontations with Inuit People (in the 1949 short ‘Frigid Hare’) as well as the aboriginal people of Australia (in the 1950 ‘Bushy Hare’).
Erasure and The Long Road Back to Representation
In 1968, United Artists (the parent company of Warner Brothers) identified eleven Loony Tunes and Merrie Melody shorts that they deemed too offensive for contemporary audiences and thus would be banned from syndicated rebroadcasting. These shorts came to be known as the infamous ‘Censored Eleven’ and included works by animation luminaries such as Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng and Bob Clampett. Each of the censored films entailed racist depictions of Black people either as a central or peripheral aspect of the story.
When Ted Turner obtained the rights to the pre-1950s Warner Bros. library from MGM/UA Entertainment Co., he vowed that he would not distribute nor air any cartoons from the Censored Eleven. They were the only cartoons in this package not to be featured in the compendium series 'The Golden Age of Looney Tunes.'
Not long after the embargo on the Censored Eleven, other cartoons slowly began following suit. Among those cartoons pulled from syndication were A Feather in His Hare, Frigid Hare, Bushy Hare, the entire Inkie series, most of the World War II propaganda films and others. Disney did the same, locking away in their vault those cartoons deemed offensive by modern sensibilities. Some were salvaged by altering the dialogue or replacing the animation in key scenes. For example, Disney animators drew up new cells for The Three Little Pigs so to eliminate the Big Bad Wolf’s antiSemitic disguise. Likewise, The Tom and Jerry show retired the character of Mamma Two Shoes and reanimated scenes that harkened back to offensive jokes evocative of minstrel shows.
Elsewhere, Paramount pulled episodes of Popeye the Sailor that included derogatory depictions of Africans, the Japanese and Native Americans. While Walter Lantz studio retired the Sambo-style character named Eightball.
What followed was not exactly a huge step forward. Racist stereotypes were removed from American cartoons, but so were people of color people altogether. Indeed from the 1950s through to the middle 1970s, cartoons were almost entirely devoid of any characters who were people of color. Shows like The Flintstones, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Under Dog, Archie and Friends, Mighty Mouse and Scooby Doo all seemed to take place in worlds inhabited exclusively by white people.
The reasons why people of color were so hugely absent from cartoons during this time can only be speculated upon. Perhaps studios believed their audiences were solely interested in white characters. Maybe some were worried about a character being unintentionally construed as offensive. With the fever pitch of Civil Rights Movement throughout much of the 1960s, simply adding in a Black character could be seen as a political statement; and it is likely that studios did not want be viewed as taking a stand.
The trend slowly remitted by the 1970s. The Saturday Morning cartoon Kid Power introduced Sybil and Diz; Black Vulcan was added to the team in Super Friends, Valerie Brown was a main player in Joise and The Pussycats and Scooby Doo shared an adventure alongside The Harlem Globetrotters (an appearance so popular it would eventually lead to a Globetrotters animated series). In 1972, comedian Bill Cosby teamed up with Lou Scheimer and Filmation Associates to create Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids. This was a cartoon with an exclusively Black cast. Filmation initially had a hard time getting a network to green-light the project, but CBS Broadcasting ultimately took a shot and the show proved an enormous success.
Bill Cosby himself turned out to be a rather lousy guy, yet that should not detract from the importance of Fat Albert as a cartoon that portrayed Black youngsters as just regular people, as normal kids having adventures and learning life lessons. It would take a while, but Fat Albert helped open the door for future animated projects (like The Proud Family, Static Shock and Craig of The Creek) where Black characters could be the stars of the show.
Progress continued albeit at a slow and less than ideal pace. Early on, Black characters were often relegated to a singular or ‘token' member of the ensemble. And the steps forward were invariably followed by a step or two back (looking at you Rickety Rocket). By the middle 1990s into the 2000s, however, Black characters became much more prolific throughout American animation. The extent of the inclusivity was and remains far from satisfactory, yet has moved in a direction toward the better.
Asian, LatinX and Native American peoples also slowly matriculated back into the cartoon world. Of course the stereotypes remained... albeit in a relatively less malicious fashion. Asian characters were typically shown as logical, reserved and almost always proficient in some form of martial art; LatinX characters were hot-tempered and frequently hyper-occupied by romantic pursuits; and Native American characters were mystical with a near-supernatural connection to nature. These were not necessarily negative attributes, yet still demeaning in that the characters could not just be regular folks and had to instead connect to some larger, preconceived ethnocultural typology.
Of course simply not having Black characters be evocative of minstrel performers, not having Asian characters with bucked teeth and yellow skin, not having Mexicans constantly wearing sombreros all constitutes an extremely low bar. More modern cartoons have been doing a progressively better job of putting forward characters of color who are multifaceted, fleshed out and more fulsomely representational. Unsurprisingly, this progress has been facilitated by a greater number of individuals of color working in the industry.
Racial/cultural sensitivity is a hugely complex matter, and demographic groups are not monoliths with a one-size-fits-all mentality. Cartoons deemed as steps forward by some can be derided as insensitive by others. Movies like The Princess and the Frog, Mulan, Encanto, Aladdin and Pocahontas are all pretty neat in that they introduce ‘Disney Princesses’ who are Black, Asian, LatinX, Middle Eastern and Native American. Nevertheless they are plenty of critics who still have major issues with how some if not all of these characters are presented.
The Nickelodeon series Avatar The Last Airbender is set in a mythical world very much seated in Asian culture and folklore. The production hired consultants and scholars so to best ensure that the series and its characters were not unintentionally offensive. Did this work, was it enough? …it depends on who you ask. I love Avatar The Last Airbender and consider it among the greatest animated series ever. Yet if someone were to say it misappropriates Asian culture or plays loose with themes of genocide and colonialism in a fashion that is disrespectful of the real life history of the Asian continent… who am I to say they are wrong?
And while there are certainly plenty of LatinX people who view Speedy Gonzalez as an iconic hero, there are surely others who view him as offensive.
Even the base idea of inclusion and diversification can be looked at as objectionable. In a featured essay in The Guardian, scholar Saida Grundy pointe out that “The soft-bellied politics of ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusion’ and ‘representation’ are not truly a challenge to the remaining pillars of white supremacy, but rather a concession to it” adding, “diversity, inclusion and representation reinforce a belief that the cultural contributions of oppressed peoples hold value only in the grasp and domain of their oppressors.” Herein Grundy is referring to the Black Arts Movement as a whole, not cartoons... yet it is not difficult to apply the sentiment to the realm of American animation.
Adding Black Vulcan to the cast of the Super Friends merely checked a box. The character was hardly representational of anything other than a diversity quota. Whereas Static from the 2000 animated series Static Shock proved a different matter. The character was created by Black writer (Dwayne McDuffie) voiced by a Black actor (Phil LaMar) and entailed storylines and themes specific to the experiences of many Black populations in modern day America. Static was not a concession looking to be assimilated into the traditional standards of superhero animation, it was its own thing.
Other such examples include The Proud Family, Soul, The Boondocks, C-Bear and Jamal, Bebe’s Kids and The P.J.s... These are cartoons and animated features that put Black characters and Black issues at the forefront without being overly concerned about how the projects will appeal to white audiences. Black viewers seem to be the central target and, if non-Black viewers like them too, then that is just an added bonus.
This is not to suggest that every animation creator who is a person of color is in some way obligated to make content specifically tailored to ethnocultural issues. Cartoons are often meant to be escapist fun after all and need not have a socio-political component. Surely there is a middle ground between total separation and complete assimilation.
Animator Ian Jones-Quartey (who is Black) created the cartoon OK KO Lets Be Heroes that stars a non-Black hero; whereas Matt Burnett (who is white) created the cartoon Craig of The Creek, staring a protagonist who is Black. Both of these projects in my view represent progress in terms of greater diversity in the realm of American cartoons... progress despite the fact that neither takes notable stands on ethnocultural issues.
I suppose one could argue that Jones-Quartey’s talent provides him a platform to address racial issues and not doing so is a shirking of responsibility; or one could criticize Matt Burnett for failing to comment on the often complicated relationship between race and the environment. Yet I would feel such criticisms would be unfair and unproductive.
Responsibility is a difficult tightrope to walk in creative endeavors. Not enough responsibility results in hurtful abominations (like Goldilocks and the Jive-Talkin’ Bears); whereas too much responsibility can stymie creativity and lead to tepid results (here I’m thinking of Disney’s animated feature, Strange World... a project that seemed intent on checking every diversity quota imaginable yet ended up feeling rather soulless and boring (as well as a huge box office flop)).
Justice and inclusivity are very important, but so too is authenticity and creative freedom. Animators like Jones-Quartey, Burnett and others need to be free to make art that is true to themselves. A lack of such freedom all too often leads to cartoons that are toothless and boring. A true abolishment of racism would entail a liberty to embrace and celebrate racial/cultural issues as well as a freedom not to.
The same holds true for other projects and characters of any race or cultural background. Dora The Explorer, Miguel from Coco and Isabela from Encanto are each fantastic characters from projects where race and culture are critical facets. At the same time, Luz from The Owl House, Manny from Handy Manny and Ronnie from Loud House are also great characters; charters who happen to be LatinX but whose journeys are more idiosyncratic and not specifically tied to ethnocultural issues.
In short, cartoon characters who are people of color need to enjoy the same freedom and versatility as those who are white. The Miraculous Ladybug is set in Paris while Gravity Falls is set in Oregon. Sometimes these cartoons delve into cultural issues, sometimes they do not, and in both cases it is not a matter that anyone seems to get too worked up over. The characters of these cartoons enjoy the privilege of flexibility, the freedom to be ballasted by cultural matters as well as untethered to them.
The goal is that the same should hold true of other characters regardless of any sort of demographic feature. The various things that make us who we are, our race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, culture, ancestry... all these things should be both important and unimportant at the same time.
Granted this is a lofty goal; as well as one that may feel especially far off in the current political climate. Nevertheless, cartoons like any form of art possesses the choice to follow or lead. There are many examples of both. Cartoons like Mickey's Mellerdrammer and Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips followed. They took preexisting racist tropes and re-disseminated them, spreading the hate and further concretizing harmful stereotypes. Others lead. Shows like Fat Albert, Arthur, The Proud Family, Avatar, Steven Universe and others, along with features like Soul, The Legend of Sarila, Coco, Moana and others… all of these chose to innovate, to buck the trend and challenge both negative stereotypes as well as the status quo writ large.
The former, those that chose to follow, are now shunned, censored, locked away forever in the Disney vault. Whereas the later, those that led, are celebrated and cherished.
Individuals and studios making cartoons and animated features in the here and now have that same choice. Non-accountability is no longer on the table and these creators can opt to follow or to lead. The arch of history is indeed long and I sure hope it bends toward justice. If it does, then those who lead will be remembered and celebrated while those who follow can expect to be shunned and forgotten.
For a good while there it felt as though the pendulum was swinging in a positive direction. Characters who were people of color, people of different backgrounds, lifestyles and sexual orientation were becoming more and more visible in the realm of animation. Sadly that pendulum has swung back faster than expected. Cultural issues of identity have been crudely fashioned into a political cudgel and matters pertaining to diversity, equity and inclusion have been made radioactive. Fearful of losing money, the major animation studios (and Hollywood as a whole) have cravenly retreated and returned to a largely vanilla output.
The 2025 edition of the UCLA Hollywood diversity report found a troubling reversal in what had previously been a positive trend. The report noted that the proportion of people of color in key position in entertainment industry has endured a significant decline from 2023. This despite the fact that productions with greater diversity perform substantially better in terms of viewership and finical returns. In other words, there are less productions by and about people of color, yet those productions that are diverse compose a disproportionately large number of successful ventures.
Despite the figures showing the profitability of more diversity in the entertainment industry, the larger film studios have notably recoiled from diversity and representation both in front of and behind the camera. There are likely many factors behind this trend, although the primary culprit appears to be the bigoted policies of the trump administration and its ‘anti-woke’ agenda. Greater diversity in movies, shows and animation has continued to correlate with positive profit margins, yet the studios have nonetheless bent to the pressure and altered their products.
A primary example of this can be found in the Pixar animated feature, Elio. Originally conceived of by Adrian Molina, Elio initially centered on a rather unique and idiosyncratic protagonist. Studio heads appeared to be concerned that aspects of this character could be construed as too woke and continuous edits were mandated that substantially altered Elio. The character’s cultural background was sanded down to a mere footnote and the more effeminate and neuro-divergent aspects of his mannerisms, interests and personality were removed entirely. The script was changed to such a degree that Molina left the movie in protest and new directors were brought on board to salvage what had already been produced.
Presumedly these changes were due to the artificially inflated outrage of the ‘anti-woke’ movement. The idea being that a queer-coded, neuro-divergent, LatinX protagonists was far too progressive for audiences’ delicate sensibilities. Whatever the studio’s rationale was in terms of making these changes, it was a losing move. The stripped down and hollowed out final product of Elio proved a finical flop and represents Pixar’s worst box office opening ever.
It is pure speculation, but I believe had Pixar chose to stick to Molina’s original vision for Elio the movie may have ended up more of a success. There is no way of proving this… although what is clear is that sanitizing a production to make it safer or ‘less woke’ is a surefire recipe for a box office bomb.
The manufactured adage of ‘go woke go broke’ has shown itself to be an empty and erroneous sentiment in the entertainment industry. The same UCLA study noted above found that the majority of moviegoers keeping the industry afloat are people of color; that filmgoers of color purchased the majority of opening-weekend tickets for seven of the top ten highest-grossing movies of 2024. Combine this with shifting racial demographics in the population and it becomes abundantly clear that greater diversity will be essential to the over arching health of show business in the United States.
Cartoons and animation can choose to be the tip of the spear in augmenting diversity and representation, or it can be a late adaptor. Time will tell...
Anyone who has made it the end of this essay may come away thinking that I hate cartoons… having picked apart and so harshly criticized many aspects of its origins. In truth I adore cartoons. I think Bugs Bunny is hilarious, Donald Duck is a long time favorite… I watched so much Tom and Jerry in my childhood that they feel like surrogate siblings to me.
I love cartoons both despite and because it their flaws. Animation as a whole is sort of like an organism: one that evolves and adapts. It innovates both it terms of technical achievement as well as the values it relays. Moving into the future requires a knowledge of the past and denying history greatly risks its repetition.
As such I do not feel those old cartoons should be censored. Dumbo should not be reedited, nor should Speedy Gonzalez be retired... The Song of The South should be made available on Disney Plus. Warnings should be put in place of course and parental locks if necessary. Simply sweeping the whole matter under the rug and trying to forget it only exonerates the perpetrators and offers a balm to a guilty conscience. It does not help those who were hurt and sets the stage for them to be hurt again.
History is a lodestone, a shinning star that leads the path to the future. Mistakes have value in that they teach lessons. Remembering mistake (even shameful one) can help ensure they do not occur again.
Critical theory has been made into a political matter. Villains continue to argue that exploring the past holds no value and historical injustices should be simply forgotten about. And it is no coincidence that this movement against critical theory has occurred in tandem with bold-faced insistence on doing away with any and all efforts to augment diversity, equity and inclusion. It is all a power play… a desperate move by the crumbling vestiges of the fools and demagogues who still believe in white supremacy.
A sanitized history of American cartoons, one in which bigoted stereotypes are censored, edited out, and reanimated may seem a very small component to the overarching scheme of these power hungry villains and their witless followers. Yet every component matters and it is the responsibility of cartoon creators and cartoon enthusiasts to fight back. To know this history, learn from the past and continue to strive for a better future.
A critical analysis of one subject will always come at the expense of others. This brief and woefully incomplete exploration into the history of racism in American animation does not touch on many other issues that are also very important. Sexism was and remains a terrible thorn in the side of the field of animation. The same is true for heterosexism, antiSemitism, and other isms too many to count. These matters were not addressed in this essay despite the fact that I do feel they are key issues equally deserving of exploration.
