Cartoon Violence
Last week I talked about the death of the Comics Code Authority, and to a lesser degree, about censorship in general. I wanted to touch on cartoon violence, but figured the subject really deserved a post of its own. So consider this an appendix on the last blog post.
Now, keep in mind, I am an Old Coot, so I’m talking specifically about the cartoons that were popular in the 80s or early 90s. I realize that Saturday morning cartoons aren’t really a thing any more, but I assume that things haven’t changed all that much otherwise.
A lot of people aren’t even aware that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were originally a comic, but they were. Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird developed the title from a concept that was born from a doodle on a napkin back in the early 80s. Despite the silliness of the overall concept, the comic could get fairly gritty. These weren’t the skateboarding, pizza-eating cliches that became so popular later, but an angsty gang of vigilantes who battled — and killed — real people.
In the cartoon, which became so ubiquitous, the turtles’ main antagonists, the Foot clan, were turned into an army of robots. This allowed the turtles to eviscerate them and no one had to get hurt. Whenever a Foot clan soldier was injured, it was clear from the sparking gears and wires inside that it wasn’t actually a person.
Another popular cartoon of that era was G.I. Joe. This was a show about a paramilitary organization that fought an army of terrorists. There’s bound to be some death and destruction in a show like that, right? Nope! Joe and Cobra would stand toe-to-toe shooting laser rifles (that ejected shells?) at each other all day, and yet no one was ever hit. The only casualties of their battles were the airplanes and helicopters, but whenever one of them was hit, the pilot always ejected just before it blew up. Every single time.
On shows like He-Man and the Masters of the Universe or Thundercats or Thundarr the Barbarian or a dozen others that I can’t think of, the hero had a giant sword that somehow never cut flesh.
All of these shows were limited, I’m sure, by a mandate that they not show violence. But I would say that they had plenty of violence, but no consequences. There were sword fights and shootouts, but no blood, no pain, and no lasting injuries. Which is worse? Surely, this was intended to protect impressionable children, but if it had any impact, it was to teach them that guns and swords are harmless. That war is as safe as it is fun (and always comes with a simplistic safety tip at the end).
I am definitely not saying that cartoons should be more violent. I’m just saying that if you are going to show violence, do it right: show the consequences. If you aren’t willing to do that, then don’t do it at all. Stick with Smurfs or Care Bears.
Funny, I was just talking to a friend about how backwards it is to ban violent videogames, or paintball (as the Germans did), when these can act like release valves for the vanishingly few people who really do have violent tendencies.
More on topic, as I pointed out elsewhere — http://www.soldiersthecomic.com/on-killing-pulling-the-trigger/ — one of the reasons people do stupid things is that physical violence is utterly alien to the vast majority of us, so we don’t *know* what it involves. E.g. if you’ve never been in a fistfight, you don’t know it hurts… and you’re more likely to think it works like in the movies.So yeah, shielding kids from lessons about real life is most likely a terrible idea.
By the power of grey skull i censor thee
At a certain age, yes, kids need to know. But by that age are you going to tell me that they don’t know unless you show them? How do we shelter one and reveal to the other, and when? When has typicaly been as they become adults and capable of handling the info.
The world can be a terrible place. By your argument should the nightly news show the bloody bodies when they report murders, or the decomposing bodies when they find the kidnap victim, or the strung out druggies in places that you’d not feel safe, or the starvation victim’s emaciated corpses left where they lay. Even adults rarely handle ‘the whole truth’. We know it is there, but something keeps us from looking too close.
At a certain age, kids use imaginary guns (or wands or bows, etc). But no adult interupts them with a visual reprimand of all of the horrors or war until the tyke decides to reform himself.
I think that as an adult you are saying to yourself, I was lied to as a kid. As an adult, I now think I could have handled ‘the whole truth’. And you would be wrong. Kids are different from our adult memories of what we think we were like as kids. Real kids have nightmares. Before you go off advocating potential harm, you should understand the psychological development of children.
You’re really reading a lot into what I’ve said. You seem to suggest that I am saying that there is no place for discretion or restraint, but that’s not my point at all. Of course I’m not saying that the news should show every gory detail of every murder or accident or tragedy. But they’re just reporting what has actually happened, and those details would do nothing to better inform the public.
You’re also completely missing my point about showing the consequences of violence in children’s programs. I’m not saying that I really wish that there had been more blood and death in G.I. Joe. I’m suggesting that since the producers of that show were not willing to portray violence accurately, they probably shouldn’t have shown it at all. My point is that showing consequence-free violence is potentially more harmful than showing realistic violence, because it gives kids an unrealistic idea of effects of violent behavior.
Regarding violent play, some parents don’t allow their kids to play with toy guns or to pretend to fight, and I think that’s a valid choice. Others allow their kids to play-fight, but make sure to teach them the difference between make-believe and reality. You argue that young kids shouldn’t be exposed to realistic portrayals of violence, and I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m suggesting that it’s probably best not to show them violence at all.