I did not realize before yesterday that Johnny Hart's B.C. had been animated multiple times. The first time was in 1973 (fifteen years after the strip debuted) when NBC aired B.C.: The First Thanksgiving and featured the talents of folks like Daws Butler and Don Messick. Peanuts had had success in animated holiday specials since A Charlie Brown Christmas first aired in 1965, and this B.C. special was presumably meant to compete against A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving which also first aired in 1973.
Curiously, a "sequel" (B.C.: A Special Christmas) didn't show up until 1981. It featured the voices of Bob Elliott and Ray Goulding this time. Johnny Hart is given full story credit here (he splits it with Jack Caprio on the Thanksgiving special), although the story is surprisingly secular given Hart's later penchant for proselytizing in his strip and how religious the Peanuts special was. The only real religious reference is a set of three men on camels walking off towards the North Star at the very end.
As near as I can tell, neither B.C. cartoon has seen wide syndication, nor have they been released on any form of home video. Evidently, they just didn't charm viewers in quite the same way Schulz's characters did. YouTube, however, does have the Christmas special as a single video, and it looks like there's enough clips of the Thanksgiving one to see that in it's entirety as well.
Monday, October 13, is Columbus Day, the day Americans honor the man who "discovered" our country. In recent years, you may have heard some groups make some noise about how we shouldn't pay tribute to the man, or how some cities have re-named the day "Indigenous People’s Day." Matthew Inman put together this "comic" (it's not really a comic, so much as illustrated prose) providing several reasons why Christopher Columbus isn't worthy of a holiday; it will probably be more extensively linked to in the next few days.
But the retort often comes back: why should I change what I grew up with? This is basically the same arguements sports fans have been making about professional teams with racist names and mascots.
Like, I expect, many of you, I was taught in school that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue..." And this was in a suburb of Cleveland, where opening day of baseball season was almost more of a holiday than Columbus Day, so we could celebrate the Cleveland Indians. And that was just how things were. We grew up with it all around us, so it felt quite normal and everyone accepted Columbus as a sort of godfather to the United States and Chief Wahoo as Cleveland's pride. There were a few of us, I recall, who were well-read enough to know about Leif Ericson, but he was mostly brushed off with a "yeah, he technically 'discovered' America before Columbus, but he never did anything about it." Similarly, we knew Columbus never actually set foot in North America, but Central America was close enough to count.
But even with those caveats, the basic stories we were told as children held true. 1492, Columbus, New World, colonization, Thanksgiving, George Washington... That was American history class for us. And that's why it's problematic for so many people today to accept these "new" truths about history.
See, we learn a whole bunch of stuff as kids. And sometimes those things turn out to be untrue. There was a time when a molecule was thought to be the smallest component part of matter. People were taught this. And then we discovered atoms. And then we discovered protons and electrons. And then we discovered quarks. And each time one of these discoveries was made, people had to go around "re-learning" what they thought they knew about microscopic particles. And that was okay because each time, these were entirely new discoveries.
"Well, we thought molecules were the smallest things ever, but we got this new microscope and now we can see the stuff that makes up molecules!"
"We thought atoms were the smallest things ever, but we can now see there's stuff that makes up atoms!"
"We thought protons and electrons were the smallest things ever..."
These are genuinely new discoveries. Things that no one had any knowledge of before. Science often works like that.
But history, particularly this type of history we're talking about with Columbus, comes from a different place. History, it's said, is written by the victors. And they write history in a way to put the best light possible on themselves. Sometimes just by putting a positive spin on events, sometimes by omitting negative elements, sometimes with outright lies. And that is why accepting revisions in history (and social sciences more generally) is more difficult.
See, it's not really that people think Columbus was a great and noble hero, and they have this huge amount of respect that they flat-out reject any notion that he doesn't deserve a holiday. No, the issue is that the people who taught them that -- their parents, and teachers, and guardians -- are now being portrayed as liars. They're protesting the idea that the authority figures they looked up to and respected as children told them something fundamentally untrue. The people who taught you how to read and write, the people who provided praise when you did something well, the people who fed you and bathed you and put a roof over your head... you're now being told that they were wrong. And not just wrong, but willfully wrong. That they knew the truth, and deliberately lied to you for the sake of whatever story they were trying to tell. That's a hard pill to swallow.
And that's why it's important to go out of the way to show just how awful a person Christopher Columbus was. If you just say that he brought diseases to the New World, someone might be able to dismiss that as an unintended consquence. If you say he brought back slaves, they might say they were brought back to show what natives looked like and that Columbus didn't actually intend for them to be slaves. But as you pile more and more crap on Columbus -- he brought back slaves repeatedly, he chopped off the hands of natives who didn't pay him, he wrote in his journal about raping the women, etc. -- it gets that much harder to dismiss or ignore.
That biographic comic I have picture on the left? It's not done all that well in the first place, but more importantly, it largely reiterates the lies I was told as a child. The Oatmeal piece that I linked to above; frankly, it's not a great example of a biographic comic by any means, but Inman at least tries to set the record straight.
Listen, like I'm sure a lot of you, I had a crush on my first grade teacher too. (Ms. Cougar -- I swear, her name was Ms. Cougar!) She was sweet and attractive and seemed to know everything (she was a teacher, after all) and I thought the world of her. But there was stuff she (and ALL of my subsequent teachers) told us that were lies. They were human, and subject to the same influences you and I are. In some cases, they were just reiterating what they were taught (and never questioned) and in some cases, they had an agenda of some sort. (My biology teacher in high school managed to include creationism in her lessons on evolution.) Don't continue to "honor" those individuals by insulting whole groups of people who had their or their ancestors lives severely and negatively impacted.
The graphic designer in me is tickled by this: "'She’s strong, she’s foxy, and she uses the power of words to combat the evil Dominant Narrative. And she rocks a hot afro.' Meet the new comic book character and social justice superhero, Helvetika Bold..."
Nicky Wheeler-Nicholson, granddaughter of Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, has been getting into comics and tracking down information about her grandfather. She recently posted about how she's been discovering new (to her!) creators in the industry.
Here at Kleefeld HQ, we're always interested in what visual linguist Neil Cohen is up to. In this paper (and accompanying video) he describes what he calls "the grammar of comics in the brain."
A few years back, I presented some info about Ben Hardy & The Ohio Adventure, which told the history of Ohio in comic strip form. Earlier this year, I review Texas History Movies, which told the history of Texas in comic strip form. Recently, I stumbled across a comic detailing the Lousiana Purchase and another on the founding of Tennessee.
These were both done in the 1950s and were pretty obviously targeted to a limited audience, notably younger residents of the states in question. They seem to be done entirely independent of one another, and I don't get the impression that any one of these comics had any influence on any other.
So I'm wondering now how many of these types of comics are out there? There couldn't be one for every state, could there?If these comics were a 1950s thing, that would have probably faded in popularity by the time Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959. But are there comics out there detailing the history of Nebraska? Iowa? Kansas? New Hampshire? That'd make for an interesting collection, I think, to see how people depicted the various state histories and what was focused on in each. Does anyone know of/have actual examples?
About a decade before Rube Goldberg became well-known for his crazy invention ideas, he developed a comic called Foolish Questions. It consisted of one person asking another a question to which there was a seemingly mind-boggingly obvious answer, and the second person answering in as absurd a manner possible. It was literally the prototype that Al Jaffe later used for his Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions.
Jaffe wasn't the only one who borrowed Goldberg's idea, though. Goldberg's first Foolish Questions comic appeared in late 1908, and 1909 saw more than a couple immitators like Raymond Ewer's Those Ridiculous Questions and Foolish Foolish Questions by "Sterling" (a house pen-name at World Color Printing).
Several years after the original strip ran it's course in early 1910, they were reprinted by the Wallie Dorr Co. in the form of a card game. Cards were printed up using Goldberg's art, but the dialogue balloons were removed. The answer was then typeset along the bottom, and the challenge was then to match your cards up against the questions that the dealer would read out. Goldberg contribued two new quick illustrations to the game (for the box cover and the card back) but most of the art was taken from existing material.
I've seen people peg the game's date everywhere from 1912 to 1919. While the earlier date seems most likely, Goldberg continued dropping the feature in some of his other cartoons for years, so the 1919 date is still pretty plausible. Further, the game was re-issued with some new graphics in 1924, so the concept still had some life, even if it wasn't being run as a primary feature any longer.
What I find interesting is not only that it's game based on a comic from a famous cartoonist, but it's the earliest such game I've seen that uses actual comic panels as part of the game play itself, as opposed to, say, a board game that simply uses graphics from the comics. There's very few games I've seen utilize comics to this extent (in fact, "5 Card Nancy" is the only other one I can think of offhand) and that it was conceived a century ago near the very birth of newspaper comics is fascinating.
So you've heard about Jerry Holbert's "watermelon" cartoon, right? Where, in poking fun at the recent White House security gaff, Holbert drew a stranger in President Obama's bathtub. In theory, it's suggesting that security is so weak that any random person could get ready access to what should be the most private place for the President. Which is a decent enough joke, but then Holbert went an extra step by having this stranger initiating a conversation with the President about watermelon flavored toothpaste.
And to no one's suprise (except, apparently, Holbert himself and the editors at The Boston Herald who employ him) people saw that as a racist commentary. Holbert claims innocence on the grounds that he was ignorant of any racist connotations from pairing a Black man with watermelons. It's plausible, I suppose, but I'm highly skeptical.
(Side Note: The version of the cartoon I'm including on this page was one that United Feature Syndicate had corrected before they sent it out on the wire. Before, I might add, The Boston Herald published the original watermelon version. The syndicate knew that it was a bad idea before the Herald caught a PR shitstorm.)
First, the stranger's dialogue is irrelevant to the joke. The gag is just the surprise that Obama finds a stranger in the absolutely last place he would expect. There are any number of ways Obama could've come across this person. But even assuming you want to keep the exact same art, you can have the bather say ANYTHING and the joke still works.
"Can you pass the shampoo?"
"Sleep well last night?"
"So when do they stop serving breakfast in this joint?"
"Looks like it'll be a nice day out."
"How about them Packers?"
He needs to say something so that Obama realizes someone is in the room with him, despite his back being turned. But the dialogue can be about literally anything, and it impacts the joke absolutely not at all. Holbert had an infinite number of options to choose from, and he opted for watermelon toothpaste.
But here's the real reason I don't buy Holbert's excuse: he's a polticial cartoonist. The job description of a political cartoonist hasn't changed in a century. They poke fun at political figures and situations using illustrations, and rely on visual analogies and iconography to get their points across. Their job is to know (and thus be able to draw) symbols. If you draw a white dove, that is a symbol for peace. If you draw a robed figure wielding a scythe, that is a symbol for death.
Political cartoonists (and, for that matter, all cartoonists) deal with symbols ALL THE TIME. That is the very heart of their job. To convey ideas to readers using symbols. There is no better expert on symbols than a talented political cartoonist.
And for a political cartoonist to NOT realize the symbolism of putting a Black man in the context of watermelons? That says to me that the cartoonist is maybe not very good at knowing symbols. And if you're not very good at knowing symbols, maybe you shouldn't be trying to make a career drawing them.
Either that, or you knew damn well what you were doing and were hoping that no one would notice. In which case, you'd be a racist fucktard.
Either way, as much as I don't like that so many cartoonists have been let go from newspapers, this might be one instance where it's justified.
Back in August, David Stinson stumbled upon a Hudson Valley Renegades minor league game which was hosting a "Comic Con Night" where they had Joe Sinnott, Walt Simonson, Louise Simonson, Mark McKenna, Bob Wiacek, Fred Hembeck, and Victor L. Castro, Jr. collectively throw out the ceremonial first pitch.
The International School of Comics in Chicago is hosting a contest, the winner of which will receive free tuition at the school for one year.
The International Comic Arts Forum will be hosted by The Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum on November 13-15, 2014. Lots of great-sounding panels, and I will definitely be trying to make sure my calendar is free enough to attend the whole weekend!
