Why is it that movies, cartoons, and TV programs for children are so obsessed with presenting an extremely friendly nature, with all kinds of creatures, which would in actual nature be eating each other or otherwise evolutionarily competing for survival against each other, coddling and smiling and holding hands going on trips? I don't believe this is an old phenomenon (though I welcome you to point out if I'm wrong). I believe this is a relatively new thing, a result of humans distancing ourselves more and more from nature.

Interesting question... but I don't think it's anything new. Ever seen the old cartoons Magilla Gorilla or Grape Ape? How about Barney Bear or the Cowardly Lion from Wizard of Oz?

Kids are smart enough to know there's a difference between characters they see on TV or movies and real-life animals. Personally, I don't see the harm in not showing them that bears really attack people and lions are never really cowards. They have to learn all that real life stuff too soon as it is.

M-I-C-K-E-Y... eek, get me the rat poison, Ethel!

;)
SMW

Interesting question... but I don't think it's anything new. Ever seen the old cartoons Magilla Gorilla or Grape Ape? How about Barney Bear or the Cowardly Lion from Wizard of Oz?

Kids are smart enough to know there's a difference between characters they see on TV or movies and real-life animals. Personally, I don't see the harm in not showing them that bears really attack people and lions are never really cowards. They have to learn all that real life stuff too soon as it is.

M-I-C-K-E-Y... eek, get me the rat poison, Ethel!

;)
SMW
I mean before TV and movies. Did people do this in alternative but similar ways? I can't imagine that they would. They told stories of wizards and fairies, but I don't think they made dangerous creatures seem innocent in the old days.

Originally Posted by Dio Seijuro
Why is it that movies, cartoons, and TV programs for children are so obsessed with presenting an extremely friendly nature, with all kinds of creatures, which would in actual nature be eating each other or otherwise evolutionarily competing for survival against each other, coddling and smiling and holding hands going on trips? I don't believe this is an old phenomenon (though I welcome you to point out if I'm wrong). I believe this is a relatively new thing, a result of humans distancing ourselves more and more from nature.
Because that would give kids the impression that killing things in a violent nature is ok...and yes, people think that kids are really that unintelligent.

Because that would give kids the impression that killing things in a violent nature is ok...and yes, people think that kids are really that unintelligent.
You don't have to show violent stuff at all! You can show that deers run away from lions because lions are dangerous to deers. Deers have something to lose not to run away from lions. Etc. etc. etc. It doesn't have to be violent. What they are doing is to show something that's exactly what these animals will NOT do in nature, which is very uneducational.

Maybe it just makes for interesting TV for kids. If you want to see what animals do in real life, watch Animal Planet or National Geographic.

ON July 20, 1879 an undersized thirty-year-old journalist from Atlanta known as Joe Harris began a journey from relative obscurity to interregional fame. On that day, the Atlanta Constitution published the young copy editor's "Story of Mr. Rabbit and Mr. Fox as told by

Uncle Remus." Within months, magazines across the country were reprinting his tales, and after more than 1,000 written requests for a collection, the first Uncle Remus book was published in November, 1880.

At the time, Harris said his purpose was not ethnology, or folklore analysis, but simply documentation. He doubted that his stories and character sketches would have any lasting historical value. He was wrong. UncleRemus.com is an attempt to reintroduce Harris' tales, and his legendary narrator, while placing them in a historical context. The primary sources and commentaries we offer hopefully will shed light on Harris' purpose in publishing his stories and the public response to both his Remus tales and his other works. They will make observations about post-Civil War black culture, and Southern society in general, using the stories and the reactions they engendered as points of reference.


http://www.uncleremus.com/

Appears writers have used animals in stories long before the invention of TV. Uncle Remus not only used foxes and bears and lions and other animals in his stories, they were portrayed as friendly and working together to achieve common goals. During that same time period, National Geographic was probably portraying the same creatures savagely killing their prey.

Stories like Uncle Remus were written to teach children stories... but not necessarily about nature.

Personally, I just don't seem the harm.

In some Aesop's Fables and Brothers Grimm fary tales, the animals were sometimes portrayed in a savage light--like in lLttle Red Riding Hood, the wolf who eats the Granny and then Riding Hood, or the Three Bears, who eat Goldilocks.

Kids love these stories too.

In some Aesop's Fables and Brothers Grimm fary tales, the animals were sometimes portrayed in a savage light--like in lLttle Red Riding Hood, the wolf who eats the Granny and then Riding Hood, or the Three Bears, who eat Goldilocks.

Kids love these stories too.
I think those stories were much better than the new obsession with inventing friendly prey animals.

I think those stories were much better than the new obsession with inventing friendly prey animals.

Again, DS... it's not a NEW obsession. Children relate to friendly animals. It's as simple as that. Trying to prove it's some vast conspiracy to separate humans from nature is just too far-fetched for me to swallow.

:rolleyes:

Again, DS... it's not a NEW obsession. Children relate to friendly animals. It's as simple as that. Trying to prove it's some vast conspiracy to separate humans from nature is just too far-fetched for me to swallow.

:rolleyes:
I didn't say it's a conspiracy. I said it's probably a consequence of our becoming more distanced from nature. You had the cause and effect of my statement reversed.

In some Aesop's Fables and Brothers Grimm fary tales, the animals were sometimes portrayed in a savage light--like in lLttle Red Riding Hood, the wolf who eats the Granny and then Riding Hood, or the Three Bears, who eat Goldilocks.

Kids love these stories too.
Wait a minute...
I thought the hunter came along and saved Reds ass from becoming a footnote in history. Goldi, on the other hand, trashed the bear's home so if she became desert, I cant blame the bears for their predatory actions.

Wait a minute...
I thought the hunter came along and saved Reds ass from becoming a footnote in history. Goldi, on the other hand, trashed the bear's home so if she became desert, I cant blame the bears for their predatory actions.

I think that does happen in some of the versions, but I've seen very old copies of the Grimm Fairy Tales and in these books, the wolf eats Riding Hood....and where is Jack Bauer when you REALLY need him, huh? huh?

You should see the really early version of Snow White. Dang, the Wicked Stepmom was cruel. In the end, she has to dance in slippers that have a spell cast on them until she falls down dead.

Some of these old fairy tales are pretty intense, like Hansel and Gretel, a tale that has a witch who cooks and EATS kids. I've known some kids who were genuinely frightened by these stories.....they kinda had to tone them down later on but most kids really love the early, scarey versions.

I didn't say it's a conspiracy. I said it's probably a consequence of our becoming more distanced from nature. You had the cause and effect of my statement reversed.

Sorry, Dio... it was your statement 'obsession with inventing friendly prey animals' that made me think YOU think it's a planned effort... or 'conspiracy.'

This thread proves something else.

ANY topic can be turned into a heated debate on a message board.

:lolhit:

In the original version of Cinderella, the step-sisters cut off pieces of their feet (toes, heels) to try to fit in the glass slipper. Notice that Disney left out that little detail. :p

In the original version of Cinderella, the step-sisters cut off pieces of their feet (toes, heels) to try to fit in the glass slipper. Notice that Disney left out that little detail. :p O M G, I forgot about that DF, that IS what they did.

You two girls are reading the wrong books,wise up.

You don't have to show violent stuff at all! You can show that deers run away from lions because lions are dangerous to deers. Deers have something to lose not to run away from lions. Etc. etc. etc. It doesn't have to be violent. What they are doing is to show something that's exactly what these animals will NOT do in nature, which is very uneducational.

OK.already..I get it.Boat yuz and andy dint get no Teddy bears
ta plays with as kiddies.
And Playin Cowboys & Indians was also verbotin.
Which only left playtime with Mr.Rogers and Captain Kangaroo.
Which just naturally led to a penchant for Curiosity of Voyerism
or even worse.
Actually Playin the Bugger bear.

I mean before TV and movies. Did people do this in alternative but similar ways? I can't imagine that they would. They told stories of wizards and fairies, but I don't think they made dangerous creatures seem innocent in the old days.
i blame Kipling

You two girls are reading the wrong books,wise up.
Ya think?

Gosh, maybe THAT's why we're both twisted. Wrong fairy tale version.