Talk:Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs

[Untitled]

Hold on, now...we can't put captions in the infoboxes for films. I'm going to include more images, and perhaps we can move the caption and reword it. I know this is a very offensive film, but we have to remember our neutral point of view when covering it.

The cartoon in and of itself doesn't define darky iconography; it was derived from or is based upon it (the only reason the characters appear as they do is becasue it was the standard in Hollywood cartoons at that time). I've reworded it to say "an example of", because the cartoon itself can't be a concept.

Also, the article on blackface covers darky iconography in great detail. What would be wrong with piping or redirecting the link? --FuriousFreddy 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Too Opinionated

Whether or not this cartoon is "Racist" is a matter of opinon, and should not be presented in this article as though it's a fact.

I do not, IMO, find this cartoon racist. It's stereotypical and satirical, like cartoons are supposed to be, but certainly not racist.

It's not putting down African Americans. It is, rather, celebrating their culture. The way they look is simply an artistic representation of how Bob Clampett himself thinks is most interesting and funny about the African American Culture and People of the time.

Like Yosemite Sam is a satire of what's most amusing about the Texan stereotype (yes, stereotypes are what satire is built off of. it does not mean that they think all people are like that) "Prince Chawmin" is a satire of famous Black Jazz artists. the only reason this is coined as "racist" is that Clampett's interpretation of the African-American Stereotype slightly resembles those used in "Blackface" routines from only a short time earlier in history.

The difference being that Those "Blackface" routines were oppressive and derogatory, and this cartoon does the exact oppositte of put down Black Americans. (It was, apparently, loved by the black population when it came out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.236.254 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. What Clampett's intention was is irrelevant. Are you trying to say something isn't racist if it wasn't intended to be racist? That is ignorant. Do not forget that D.W. Griffith didn't intend to be racist with "Birth of a Nation" -- are you going to say there is nothing racist about that film?

The stereotypes are racial stereotypes. That black people in the entertainment industry would cooperate with it does not make it less racist. Many blacks in the entertainment industry were criticized by black americans for their portrayals.

And your comment about the black population loved this cartoon when it came out -- you are hopelessly misinformed. The NAACP had written to Jack Warner asking him to withdraw film. They were acting in response to complaints about the cartoon. Here is that letter: http://thadkomorowski.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/naacp-coal-black.pdf

That is something that this article does not mention and that this fact is withheld from the WIKI article sheds a lot of doubt on the competence and objectivity of those who wrote it.

I am NOT saying that this cartoon isn't funny. It is very funny. It is quite a piece of art. But to deny that it is racist is just out right over the top ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantedia (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple of references to 1943 NAACP opposition to the cartoon, including the link mentioned by above. The pdf file above mentions that there are other reports. Does anyone have these references? It is important to include earlier complaints above the cartoon, regardless of your opinion of the cartoon. Nereocystis (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Image removal?

Could someone explain the repeated removal of the two images from this article? I've just been replacing them, since the remover has not given any reason; but perhaps there is some subtlety I'm missing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Murder Inc.

Furthermore, the film suggests that she escapes from the clutches of Murder, Incorporated unharmed by having sexual intercourse with each of its members.

actually she just kisses them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cortes Jr (talk • contribs) 03:16 21 February 2006.

It's not a falsehood. That scene has obviously sexual implications. --FuriousFreddy 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is a falsehood. I just watched the cartoon , and the only thing shown is lipstick marks. Kissing is sexual, but sexual does not necessarily mean intercourse. The cartoon is what it is; it doesn't need exaggeration.

I second that - in the very next scene, So White flattens the 7 Dwarves with a single sweeping kiss. This seems a better explanation of what happened just before - So White can kiss a lot of men in one motion and make them all fall for her. This is not so much a negative black stereotype as it is an elaboration on the standard comic figure of the hot dame no man can resist. And would it really have been more positive for her to blow up or beat up Murder Inc in more typical Looney Tunes fashion? Rwestera (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m down with Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs. It’s my all-time favorite cartoon and it’s what sparked my affinity for retro jazz, swing and blues, what is now my favorite style of music. This cartoon is certainly not racist, just impoliticly correct at moments. This was an amazing tribute to black culture, and the positive surely outweighs the negative. What’s to be offended by? Big lips? They’re dad-blasted caricatures! If whites can be characterized, why can’t blacks? The notion that black culture cannot be utilized in cartoons is racist itself. I find contemporary black stereotypes much more offensive than relatively harmless ones such as dice. It infuriates me that someone would censor something like that but defend such degrading contemporary minstrel shows such as hip-hop and Def Jam. And then there’s ones like Dumbo and the Jasper shorts that are totally positive and nonstereotypical, and that no one could be rationally offended by, except maybe Jasper and the Watermelons but even that wasn’t that bad. I think Warner Bros is oversensitive about re-releasing African-American cartoons because of the fear of offending someone; they feel they need to be responsible since cartoons are more easily scrutinized because they appeal to children. But all they do is deprive people of great works of art. They will be sure to gain more fans than lose if released again. They can’t hide it forever! I am black by the way, and this cartoon reinforces my pride rather than put me to shame, go figure. The jivin’ musical score, the frenetic animation, the beautiful So White, what’s not to love? My other C11 faves are Goldilocks and the Jivin Bears (Goldie’s another cutie) Tin Pan Alley Cats, Clean Pastures, and Sunday Go To Meeting Time. And the one with black Elmer Fudd was hysterical. He was portrayed as an individual buffoon who happened to be black, no diffwent than Fudd was potwayed as an individual white guy. Huhuhuh. The only WB Censored 11 I find racist are Angel Puss (but then it’s doubtful harm was really intended) and the native ones. But I see the native cartoons differently depending on what mood I’m in. One day I find them totally appalling and grotesque and can barely watch, the next day I find myself pointing at the screen and giggling like an idiot laughing at the stupidity. Besides, anyone who thinks natives really have bicycle tire lips, jump rope with oversized nose rings, eat watermelon and dance around the fire covering their mouths going “woo-boo-woo-boo-woo” has problems of their own.

And agreed above, So White did NOT have sex with them, she plastered them with kisses. That rumor was even refuted in one of my animation encyclopedias of classic animation. She is no more "sexual" than Betty Boop. She is sexy in the flirtatious and provocative but innocent in the Betty Boopish kind of way, and doesn't fit the racist black "jezebel" stereotype (but Foxxy Love from Drawn Together sure does.) It's racist to assume that just because a character is an attractive black female that she is immediately a jezebel. Also, Dorothy Dandridge played a variety of characters, some of them fit the "jezebel" stereotype (Carmen Jones) and some didn't. Your article is very slanted and biased-it lacks BALANCE. Maybe you should take a hint or two from this level headed black woman. Oh but wait, my opinion doesn't matter, because I'm BLACK and MODERATE and in this day in age only hyperPC far lefty extremist white males' opinions like yourself only matter, whether you admit it or not.

And while I understand how people can be reasonably offended by the dice/lip gags, take a look at the contemporary stereotypes on BET and Comedy Central and compare- they makes those old dice gags look like a church, don't they?

My further Coal Black comments posted on forums.goldenagecartoons.com 65.54.97.193 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)wackyoverkhaki

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, sorry for being so aggressive. I did make a revision (19:13, 13 September 2006) but of course this was before I was aware you had to establish some sort of professional reputation here to do that whereas I am just a guest- I am not a regular visitor. What I did was try to balance it out a bit more so there was a mixture of positive and negative sentiments, as the article had a very negative slant. In the “controversy over racist content” I specifically stated the stereotypes in the cartoon. Some of the quotes weren’t word for word, so I altered them so that they were, or they're at least a lot closer to word-for-word than they were before. I also added a little more detail to the names, i.e. the full name of one of the voice actors is Leo “Zoot” Watson (of the jazz string band Spirits of Rhythm) and I also noted that Danny Webb also provided the voice for the queen. (Ruby Dandridge voiced the queen when she spoke in a high voice and Danny Webb spoke her deeper froglike lines). But most importantly, I eliminated the excessive unnecessary slander and defamation of So White, as I explained in further detail on my above comment. The original author of this article pulled the actual sexuality of the cartoon way out of proportion, which isn’t a surprise since contemporary America’s minds aren’t so clean and are way too obsessed with sex. These are the same types of minds who search for sexual innuendo in SpongeBob SquarePants and accuse SpongeBob and Patrick of being a gay couple.

However, I will acknowledge that the content of the article is not for me to decide. While I have a lot of knowledge of the cartoon, I am only a guest- I have not established a professional reputation here nor am I regular user. I also lack fundamental knowledge needed to contribute to this website like how to make certain things function, inserting things, proper citation, etc. I am also a busy young woman. If you don’t like my revision, there are some very good Coal Black articles on the web that do provide an excellent example of balance and insight (but certainly not all of them!). So like I said before, I don’t call the shots around here, my only intention is that you take my comments into consideration. Thanks. 65.54.154.12 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)wackyoverkhaki

• You mistake my drift; my apologies. Please, please edit the article -- guests are as welcome as long time participants to make constructive changes to articles. What's we're less interested in is personal opinions and personal feelings, and that's what I was rather opaquely (I guess) referring to. We try to keep Wikipedia from being a discussion forum or a chat board; these talk pages, as much as possible, are for the purpose of improving the articles they are attached to. We don't expect new users to know all the nuances of editing articles (like, as you suggest, citations), and we'll be happy to help. We want new editors, especially if they can fill in gaps in experience, background, knowledge, and so on. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor, but what to say instead?

Under the controversy section, there's a phrase that runs "in roles that actresses such as Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne were forced to play."

I don't think that it's entirely appropriate to say that professional actresses are forced to play sexy roles. It's sort of like saying that a chef is forced to cook dinner because that's where the most money is, instead of slinging hash on the breakfast shift at the diner. As many pharmacists are discovering these days with the controversy around drug-induced abortions, nobody's forcing you to stay in a profession that you disapprove of either morally or politically.

I just haven't figured out a way to re-write the sentence. I'd like it to communicate the idea that these roles were (unfortunately) what was offered to these women, but without implying that's the only type of role they played (which is inaccurate, and how all of my re-write attempts ended) and also without pretending that they had no choice in the matter (which is how the current version fails). Other actresses turned down roles like these -- and still do, for that matter. For example, not every actress does nude scenes, even in this modern era where it's not supposed to be a big deal.

Anyone have any ideas? 66.124.70.108 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we first might wonder about the entire section; it feels like a personal essay - accurate, certainly, but who is drawing these conclusions and comparisons? On your main point, it's a pretty common usage when discussing various forms of discrimination; think of it as "forced to take work inferior to the work that would have been available had they had less melanin." If you don't understand the drive of the artist to create, you might not understand how indeed it is a matter of being forced. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My reaction is pretty much "yes, but." It's one thing to say that a blue collar worker is forced to take whatever's on offer when you're trying to feed your kids. It's another thing entirely to say that you're forced to take starring roles in major films. If you don't like the role, you do have the options of smaller roles or live theatre (both of which let you use your creative talents), in addition to a complete change of industry.

IMHO, if your drive to "be an artist" outstrips your morals, you need to be talking to your therapist, not claiming that you were forced into inappropriate roles. (My impression, which might be wrong, is that these actresses did not mind sexy roles nearly as much as they minded, say, the white actors getting paid dramatically more for similar work. I don't mean to imply that these specific women chose to violate their own morals.)

However, I've got a friend who's been living in a homeless shelter for the last year because she is more devoted to her artwork than she is to putting a roof over her head. She makes no excuses: she prefers being a starving artist to working in an office. She's not claiming that she's forced into being an artist, or that she's forced into living in a town where a studio apartment rents for $1,000 a month. She could, after all, get an office job (which she loathes), or move to a cheaper area (the San Francisco Bay area is simply not a good choice for low-income people). She just doesn't choose to, and since she has no kids to take care of, what she chooses to do with her time and talents is really up to her. Right now, she'd rather sleep in a homeless shelter and be an artist the rest of the time. In my books, sleeping in a homeless shelter just so you can spend an extra forty hours a week 'being an artist' is proof of a very strong creative drive.

However, while the drive to create may be strong for some people, it's not really an adequate excuse for doing what you oughtn't. If your artistic impulse is stronger than the one that gets your kids fed and housed, then you're not an artist: you're either a phenomenally selfish person or someone who desperately needs a psychological evaluation. Similarly, if your desire to be an artist has you violating your own morals, then you've got problems, not an artistic drive.

The bottomline is that even if your creative drive is much stronger than average, I put "being forced to star in a movie" right up there with "being forced to eat chocolate cake." I may be a sucker for chocolate, but "I'd like to offer you some chocolate cake" is not sufficient justification for me to claim that I was forced to eat it.

On the broader subject (I apologize for the soapbox above): you're right, it's pretty much a personal essay. While it's basically (in my opinion) right on the money except for implying that these actresses had no choice in the matter, it's not exactly verifiable. Perhaps it should just be moved (or a reference found to support it: surely analyses of this piece exist!). 66.124.70.108, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Awkward Phrasing

The following is AWKWARD and should be revised: Originally, Clampett wanted an all-black band to score the cartoon, the same way Max and Dave Fleischer had Cab Calloway and His Orchestra score the Betty Boop cartoons Minnie the Moocher, The Old Man of the Mountain, and their own version of Snow White. However, Schlesinger refused, and the black band Clampett had hired, Eddie Beals and His Orchestra, only recorded the music for the final kiss sequence. The rest of the film was scored, as was standard for Warner cartoons, by Carl W. Stalling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.136.209 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps you should change it yourself, to show us what you mean. -- trlkly 08:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ZOOT WATSON?

This is an actually completely understandable mistake. In his 1969 interview with Michael Barrier, Clampett recalled that one of the voice actors for this cartoon was named "Zoot Watson". But, according to Michael Barrier's website (michaelbarrier.com), Keith Scott, the Australian voice expert, discovered in the WB archives that the person Clampett recalled as "Zoot Watson" was actually named "Leo Watson". ---Posted by JS on March 19, 2007

NO MENTION OF NAACP LETTER TO JACK WARNER

As I mentioned elsewhere the NAACP asked Jack Warner to remove this cartoon from circulation. Their comments need to be stressed and the letter should be quoted from and incorporated into this Wiki article.

You obviously have some people who want to rationalize their racism by insisting this cartoon is not racist. And some who want to say that this cartoon was "loved by black americans when it was released".

I love this cartoon. It is hilarious. But it is also racist. So White is dropped off by Murder INC. They were supposed to bump her off. Instead it appears they are all in love with her. The sexual suggestions are obvious. But you get people in this discussion saying "NO! it was only kissing. That's all you see." As though the animators could have explicitly shown sexual intercourse if they wanted to.

Again, the link to the NAACP letter:

http://thadkomorowski.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/naacp-coal-black.pdf

You are compromising you competence and objectivity by not including this in your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantedia (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Truly bizarre phrasing for a wikipedia article

So, in the introductory paragraphs we read that this is a shamelessly racist cartoon which peddles minstrel show stereotypes throughout its duration and consequently blacklisted in 1968.

Next sentence....

"However, it is often named as one of the best cartoons ever made,[2] in part for its African-American-inspired jazz and swing music, and is considered one of Clampett's masterpieces."

You have got to be kidding me. I think anyone with a decent grasp of English would find the timbre of this entire article needs some serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.154.180 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:128.59.154.180 I have completely removed the claim Stephanie921 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The claim was sourced to a book. There is no conflict in something being both racist and well-made. See The Birth of a Nation for an example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What book? And I didn't say there was conflict - you misunderstood me. I agree with that idea (although not for The Birth Of A Nation personally) - a lot of Gone With The Wind is monumentally racist - but it's one of the most technically accomplished films I've ever seen. But that's not the claim being made. The claim was about the short as a whole being one of the greatest cartoons ever - not one of the best animated ones Stephanie921 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh right yh the list came from a book. Sorry I misremembered it as being from an online list. Nevertheless, it's only one list. It does not back up the claim that it "has been included on lists of the greatest animated films ever made", which is about general reception. That idea is contradicted by the rest of the article, and the bootlegged bit is unsourced. Stephanie921 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Book supported claim. Rated number 21 on list of 1000 is significant. I put article back to way it was before IP and socks started editing article. There was no consensus to do other than remove the socks edits in that last string of edits, one of the edits was by that IP adding an inappropriate genre to the article intro. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The book didn't support the claim. It's one list. The article for Citizen Kane has more sources than the Sight And Sound list. The sock edits were the ones that removed the racist description, everyone else was adding it back Stephanie921 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the IP revision that added the racist description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1104171903 It was not one of the ones made by a sock. The sock edits begin afterwards, with socks trying to remove the racist description and everyone else adding it back Stephanie921 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Everyone else was reverting the sock edits without examining what the sock did per our WP:BANREVERT policy - the sock is well-known and virulent - everything he does gets reverted no other reason needed. There was no indication of any other motivation than that by those editors, definitely not sufficient to support any other changes to the article caught in the process including removing the WP:NPOV addition. If you don't like the list source, tag it for better source required for the statement, or source doesn't support article. Otherwise don't remove sourced long existing material from the article without discussion and consensus to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What did you mean by the bit "...or source doesn't support article" Stephanie921 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

{{Failed verification}} is the tag to use if you have looked at the source and didn't find support for the claim. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Ty but did I add it in wrong Stephanie921 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Works just like the {{citation needed}} tag. Goes after the reference used. Basically means some useful stuff is supported in reference but not everything. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is more {{Additional citation needed}} based on your concerns. Basically a generalized statement with only one cite hasn't strong enough support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying to prevent an edit war.

My edit was just reverted. And I simply put back something that was removed for no reason at all. There is a citation that backs up the statement, so I don't see the issue. User JayBeeEll, can you please explain why you removed the sentence that is cited? Bzzzing (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bzzzing: Please re-read the paragraph after your edit. Also, for future reference, the best way to prevent an edit-war is to not re-revert (precisely opposite of what you've done here). --JBL (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You've not given any reason for deleting that particular section, despite it's citation. Before reverting it AGAIN, let's talk about it. Why do you think it should be removed?

Bzzzing (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside the incompetence of the earlier edits (which you've finally figured out, though not admitted to): your addition adds uncited puffery, and you're removing a cn tag without giving a source that supports the statement. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Highly questionable video

User:Yann has uploaded a review of the subject of this article and added it to the article. I question (1) whether Yann understands what they've uploaded (the video they've uploaded is not by Bob Clampett and was not created in 1943), (2) whether this upload complies with basic copyright law, and (3) assuming it does, whether it would belong in the article at all - we certainly wouldn't include images of newspaper reviews in an article about a cultural product, we would incorporate comment from them into the article (in accordance with whatever sourcing guidelines are relevant), I don't see why this video review would be different. User:Schazjmd, I appreciate you at least making the caption not a lie. 68.237.27.46 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the media is not a constructive inclusion. The source is listed as public domain on the media page, but this seems to be an error. It is also from an arbitrarily-selected minority source. Even if it was copyright compliant, the video is neither reliable nor notable. Ertal72 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that no one has offered any disagreement, I am going to remove it again. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)