Old Comics, New Values...

Corporal Clott · Post by **Corporal Clott** » 06 May 2007, 19:12

Just for fun I began to speculate on how some of those comics characters would fare in the 21st Century. Take Laurel & Hardy, those two stalwarts from Film Fun. How long would it be before the Gay Liberation Front decided it?s time they came out of the closet? Popeye, however, would be popular with the healthy eating brigade. Although instead of five, he just sticks to one. Bluto would be forced to attend an anger management course and Olive Oil would be diagnosed as anorexic. Then there?s Wimpy who would be embroiled in a legal battle with a fast food chain. Why should those guys make a fortune using his name? Mutt & Jeff would be relabelled ?individuals with special needs" and Tarzan would run into problems because he makes it look like only a white man can swing from trees. And his relationship with that chimp would raise a few eyebrows. Talking of animals, poor old Eggo of Beano fame would end up on some ostrich farm, bred for food for those people with more money than good taste. As for his egg? That would have been scrambled long ago by the guy who ran the farm.

colcool007 · Post by **colcool007** » 06 May 2007, 20:58

Not to mention that Desperate Dan would have to attend a Health and Safety course on how to lift anything safely.

And The Bash Street Kids would now have lessons on PSHE (how to be a PC citizen for us older lot!), the Jocks and The Geordies would have to be educated on stereotyping and how it undermines our appreciation of other cultures. Black Bob would have to be chipped and pinned so that he could attend overseas sheep-trials. Bully Beef would have a skinhead hair-cut and be educated in Aggression Management. Billy The Cat would be involved in an on-going lawsuit with his local council as it would be considered that he was acting as a vigilante. Q-Bikes would be banned as they hadn't taken their cycling proficiency badge. The Iron-Fish would also be land-locked as it would have trouble obtaining a Maritime certificate of sea-worthiness.

Sparky would be in a world of trouble as he would be involved with the Race Relations Board for a negative portrayal of ethnic minorities. Limp-Along Leslie would be a hero of the Special Needs brigade and woe-betide any manager that decided to drop him due to being off-form.

Posted with tongue firmly in cheek!

Post by **AndyB** » 06 May 2007, 21:32

Q Bikes would probably be advocating Cycling Proficiency

The new Bash Street Kid is still old values. Thankfully that hasn't changed

Mind you, Sid's Snake and Shiner would be straight out - one for having a dangerous reptile in public, and the other of course features a snake.

(kidding - but of course Shiner wouldn't be allowed to box)

big bad bri · Post by **big bad bri** » 07 May 2007, 00:19

Haven't the Pc brigade banned The Dandy having desperate dan eating cow pie so as not to offend vegetarians or something.
Also Bully beef would probably be banned today what with the anti bulling campaigns at schools.
Hungry horace and Greedy pigg,The slimms + the other big boned stars of the era which i can't remember of the top of my head would prob be banned as it promotes obesity.+ sweet tooth.
Chalky for defacing public property.
Maybe that's why we don't have many weekly comics like we used to cos all the characters would have to be toned down for todays market.
Big bad bri

Lew Stringer · Post by **Lew Stringer** » 07 May 2007, 01:04

big bad bri wrote: Maybe that's why we don't have many weekly comics like we used to cos all the characters would have to be toned down for todays market.
Big bad bri

No, if that was the case they'd just do different stories, as indeed they do. (There are as many children's titles on the stands today as ever. Just not all of them contain comic strips.)

Yes, there are restrictions in comics but most are self-imposed by the writers and artists through common sense. However, Desperate Dan still eats cow pies, bullies still get their comeuppance, and there's still a healthy dose of slapstick and irreverence throughout the strips.

There's no "pc brigade" telling us what to do. It's just a growing awareness that some things are clearly wrong to put into children's comics, so it doesn't enter our heads to do it.

Lew

MikeC · Post by **MikeC** » 07 May 2007, 09:15

You're right, Lew. If we're honest about it, a lot of the old stories are pretty lame and are gone because they simply aren't relevant any more. I'd much rather see new strips than old ones still plodding along as though it were still 1937.

And today's market isn't satisifed with old comics - just show them to today's kids and listen to the deafening lack of laughter (there are exceptions, of course). That's why there aren't many weekly comics any more.

Corporal Clott · Post by **Corporal Clott** » 07 May 2007, 11:05

I know this has nothing to do with comics, but I wish someone hadn?t mentioned the dreaded PC Brigade. It?s like a red rag to a bull. Whilst the aims of the so-called PC Brigade are perfectly laudable, their methodology can hardly be described as scientific. In fact, in my opinion the people who came up with this simplistic and na?ve idea must have been sadly lacking in basic common sense. Perhaps they were intellectually challenged. For some strange reason they assume they can eradicate prejudice by changing a few words. By the simple expedient of replacing one term with another. And what have they replaced them with? A bunch of idiotic sounding terms that I would consider extremely patronising if applied to me. For example, maybe they hope the word ?fat? will eventually disappear from the language. And then the butcher will find himself, (or herself, we mustn?t be sexist), trimming the tissue of substance from a side of beef. Of course, I?m totally against calling people fat. To say someone is fat implies that they?re totally composed of adipose tissue. The correct term would be to say someone?s body contains an abundant layer of fat. ?My word! You seem to have an abundant layer of fat.? Better still, ?My word! You seem to have an abundant layer of adipose tissue.? Giving the medical term makes it sound more acceptable. Whoops! I?m in danger of joining the PC Brigade. However, I suppose the simplified term ?fat? sounds better than a mouthful like that. Which is why it was used. The people whose attitudes they?re hoping to change must be laughing their heads off. The PC Brigade have merely given them a whole new set of expressions to use as insults. Not only that, they sound even better! Prejudice, in one form or another, will always exist. No, the only effective way would be to develop a drug that alters the personality and suppresses these negative thoughts. Then it could be introduced into the water system like fluoride. There?s a thought for the PC Brigade.

Corporal Clott · Post by **Corporal Clott** » 07 May 2007, 13:21

PS: Mind altering drugs in the drinking water? Come to think of it, there's an idea for a graphic novel there!

Lew Stringer · Post by **Lew Stringer** » 07 May 2007, 14:57

I'm always a bit bemused with the term "PC brigade". It implies there's an organization of busybodies who are united to "correct" people. The truth is there's no brigade at all. It's usually some local councilor or irate parent trying to win favour amongst his peers. However, most changes in society have developed from a growing common sense of awareness and sensitivity. That's a good thing, yet some seem to resent this.

I really don't understand the reluctance to a lot of "Political Correctness". I've heard people grumble about such things as "Huh, you can't even say a shirt is nigger brown these days". No, because it's bloomin' racist that's why! The fact that some people are resentful about it shows that they're out of step with the times and are insensitive to the damage of using demeaning terms. Society has never been static. We're here to evolve.

There's no simple solution to eradicating prejudice, but making people think twice is a good start. Instead of resenting that perhaps they could ask themselves why they were about to use "non-pc" words anyway.

As for the term "fat" being out of favour; I don't see much evidence of that, with Fatty still scoffing grub in The Beano.

colcool007 · Post by **colcool007** » 07 May 2007, 15:27

Corporal Clott wrote:I know this has nothing to do with comics, but I wish someone hadn?t mentioned the dreaded PC Brigade...

Wasn't me guv.

Just passing and I heard a noise so I thought that I would come and have a look.

philcom55 · Post by **philcom55** » 07 May 2007, 16:15

Lew Stringer wrote:The truth is there's no brigade at all. It's usually some local councilor or irate parent trying to win favour amongst his peers. However, most changes in society have developed from a growing common sense of awareness and sensitivity. That's a good thing, yet some seem to resent this.

While I admire the spirit of compassion that informs your position Lew, I'm afraid I have to disagree on this. To my mind the central problem with 'political correctness' is that in practice it's nearly always used as an instrument of censorship by fundamentally humourless people who are concerned with entrenching their own power and righteousness rather than promoting the rights of others. In effect they act like Malvolio in believing that "because they are virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale". This is emphatically not the route to "a growing common sense of awareness and sensitivity" but on the contrary a road which leads to oppression and intolerance. How do you feel about the argument that casual blasphemy should be banned because it is offensive to devout Christians (let alone any positive representation of homosexuality)?

Sadly there is no unwritten rule that "changes in society" are always for the better; on the whole I'd much sooner side with the famous maxim associated with Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" ...though in the case of "Political Correctness gone Mad!" even I'm inclined to make an exception!

As a matter of interest I'd like to know if you can think of any gag that couldn't be objected to by some future 'Comics Code Authority' with a PC agenda...?

- Phil Rushton (with apologies to Al for going a bit off-topic)

Corporal Clott · Post by **Corporal Clott** » 07 May 2007, 17:01

There?s some good news for those who want to eradicate prejudice. It won?t be that long before injections of hormones that act directly on the brain will be able to alter people?s personality far more effectively than the drugs used today. Prozac will be old hat. For example, the hormone PYY 3-36 can - by acting directly on the hypothalamus - eliminate feelings of hunger. No more fatties. Of course, an overdose could cause problems. Still, nothing?s perfect. The research being conducted today by the major pharmaceutical companies will eventually lead to drugs that can target other emotions such as hatred or violence. This will effectively neuter members of BNP and others like them. Of course, there?s a moral issue here. But I?m sure a drug that eliminates morality can be found to overcome this problem. Roll on the future, that?s what I say! Okay, that's enough of that. Let's get back to comics.

Lew Stringer · Post by **Lew Stringer** » 07 May 2007, 18:10

philcom55 wrote: As a matter of interest I'd like to know if you can think of any gag that couldn't be objected to by some future 'Comics Code Authority' with a PC agenda...?

- Phil Rushton (with apologies to Al for going a bit off-topic)

Probably not, but we're not talking about the future. My main problem with the "anti-PC" way of thinking is that it always assumes that it's a "slippery slope" to harsher censorship. As if agreeing with some "PC" views means you have to agree with every extreme view from "their side", which is clearly nonsense.

In the context of comics, which is what we're talking about here, the only current censorship in children's comics is self-censorship. It wouldn't occur to me to consider making fun of the disabled in my strips, or show cruelty to animals, or show sexual situations, or to contemplate depicting a vile stereotype like Sparky (which frankly was dated and wrong even when he first appeared in 1965). I don't feel restricted by this. It's just common sense.

Lew

Corporal Clott · Post by **Corporal Clott** » 07 May 2007, 18:48

Whilst I agree with Lew, we mustn?t be complacent. The problem is that some of the people who practice extreme forms of political correctness are in positions of authority. These are the very people who would welcome total censorship. Nazi Germany is a good example of these dangers. Censorship under Josef Goebbles was total. He told the media what to say and they said it. Had people woken up to the dangers that Hitler posed early on, then he may never have gained power. Although I agree with self-censorship in comics, my favourite artist happens to be Neil Swaab. The exchanges between Swaab?s alter-ego and Mr Wiggles crack me up. In my opinion, this guy is a comic genius. Yet Swaab?s cartoon strips would be greeted with horror by certain practitioners of political correctness.

Kashgar · Post by **Kashgar** » 08 May 2007, 13:09

One of the main problems I have with political correctness in relation to comics is not whether the tenets advocated are right or wrong but whether they should be applied retrospectively.
If the character Sparky was an outmoded racist dinosaur at the time of his debut in 1965 then was the same true of his antecedent Sooty Snowball in 1939 or if not, did we cross some Rubicon of heightened sensibility in the intervening years.
My problem, if problem it be, is that I consider neither of these characters racist when viewed in the context of their time and more importantly for me, in Sparky's case, when viewed through the eyes of the child I was. I personally hate the 'How could you have possibly read that and not seen it for what it was?' spin that's put on so much material from the past.
And even when the racism is specific, and in all my years of collecting and reading comics the most racist comic strip I ever came across was a Desperate Dan effort drawn by Dudley Watkins and written by Albert Barnes, should we judge all their efforts by it and censor these two 'racists' accordingly.
The 'idle racism' of the past is something that we, as comic collectors, have to put in context. And I for one will acknowledge that had I been a child, in the non multi-cultural mining village in which I was born, in the 1930's or 1940's it wouldn't have bothered me a jot.

Comics UK