But the strong feminist themes of the series are built on a foundation of political contradictions. The most fantastic element of the show is not that ponies can talk or that dragons exist; it is the illusion that an egalitarian society can be maintained among groups with massive biologically inherent gaps in ability and economic utility. By even the most cursory of sociological and economic analyses, the society in MLP: FiM should be highly stratified along class and racial lines. And there are clear signs of that stratification, except they are obscured by a propagandistic focus on the power of “friendship”.

Solidarity is Illusion: The Political Economy of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
> Catena Ex Situ

The Smurfs had a clear identification of their given roles, whether inherited or assigned. I specify that distinction because aside from the roles of profession (such as Poet, Actor, Handy, or Farmer) there were also roles of disposition. I find this very fascinating, as these Smurfs (such as Lazy, Dreamy, Greedy, and Grumpy) seemed to offer nothing substantial to their society as a whole, yet were just as necessary.

Psychology of Cartoons – Part 2: Sociology of The Smurfs 
> Catena Ex Situ

Contributed by J. W.

In Darkwing Duck Season 1, Episode 7 (“Dirty Money”) Darkwing is hired by a banker named J. Gander Hooter to find out who’s been removing the ink from the nation’s printed money. Showing Darkwing a stack of unprinted bills, Hooter presents an observation that subtly explains the core philosophy and flaw of the central banking system (i.e. the Federal Reserve): “This paper was once worth $10,000,” he says. “Now, without the ink, it’s worthless. Without printed money, the economy will self-destruct.” The episode never really returns to this point – in fact, the entire question of the missing ink goes largely ignored – but the fact that a children’s cartoon would even mention the economy’s self-destruction and the fact that printed money is essentially worthless paper makes it hard to believe that there’s not a greater metaphor at work in this episode.

Prior to hiring Darkwing Duck, J. Gander Hooter had hired an investigative firm called SHUSH, which is represented by a character named Agent Grizzlikof. Appropriately, Agent Grizzlikof is a bear with a Russian accent (a double layer of meaning, given that the Bear is the symbol of Russia). Throughout the episode, Grizzlikof demonstrates a Soviet’s penchant for excessive bureaucracy and an insistence that everything be done “by the book.” Before allowing Darkwing to take part in the investigation, for example, he demands that Darkwing become a member of SHUSH. This involves a lengthy application process that includes a physical obstacle course (Darkwing is literally made to jump through hoops) and a mountain of paperwork. Seeing the huge stack of papers before him (the D-11 Stroke 6 Destination Disclosure Form), Darkwing remarks that “This is worse than the obstacle course.” On cue, he is informed that “Those are just the forms for permission to fill out these forms,” at which point 7 or 8 new, even taller stacks of papers are brought to him on a forklift.

According to J. Gander Hooter, however, Grizzlikof’s methods of over-regulation have failed (a jab at the failure of Communism, perhaps?), which is why he’s hired Darkwing Duck to take over. In contrast to Grizzlikof (whom Darkwing describes as a “predictable paper-pusher”), Darkwing is praised for his “unpredictable methods,” as well as his “unique brand of logic and deduction.” It is perhaps no coincidence that “unpredictable” and “logic” are both buzzwords frequently used to describe the unregulated capitalist system idealized in libertarian/free market circles. As Dr. Robert Murphy writes in his Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, “Aside from the ‘fact’ that it hurts the poor, the other major objection to capitalism is that it is allegedly chaotic [unpredictable]. After all, in a market economy no one is ‘in charge’ of car production, and it’s nobody’s job to make sure that enough newborn-sized diapers get made.”

The actual villain of the episode is a cleaning lady named Ammonia Pine (interesting that the villain is a worker, the central mythical figure of Marxist philosophy), who secretly works for the shadowy syndicate known as F.O.W.L. Her goal, unlike most cartoon villains, is not to steal a large sum of money, but to wage economic warfare. “With SHUSH off my tail and all the money scrubbed,” she cackles, “the banks will go down the drain like scum in a bathtub.” This dastardly scheme is championed by the High Command at F.O.W.L., with whom Ammonia Pine communicates via a small telecommunication device. Once the banks fail, they say, “Our economic experts will move in to mop up.” Towards the end of the episode, High Command reiterates this point, describing the manner in which they can “begin taking control of the banks and financial institutions.”

Thus, in a single cartoon we have a Russian bear whose mountains of regulation prove ineffective (Darkwing is only saved from Ammonia Pine’s giant vacuum cleaner when he tears Grizzlikof’s SHUSH manual into pieces and uses its pages to block the vacuum’s vent system); a villain who realizes that power comes from destroying (and then controlling) banks and financial institutions with the help of “economic experts”; and a hero whose greatest virtues are his lack of rules (i.e. he is unregulated) and his unpredictability. Sounds to me like two critiques of Communism (its bureaucracies and its thirst for economic control and power) and a wink at free-market capitalism. This is perhaps no surprise, given that Darkwing Duck first aired in 1991 when the Soviet Union was well on its way to collapse.

The good ol’ Blasphemin’ Cap’n, previous of How the Simpsons have Lost their Way, has hoisted up another gem from the depths of his intellect:

Dora the Explorer and Caillou are calculated subversive propaganda machines brought forth by foreign governments to undermine the sanctity and security of the United States.

While the research may be dubious and the logic may also be dubious, Cap’n raises intriguing hypotheses. Excerpt with regard to Caillou:

The storyline revolves around a, 4-year bald “big boy”, named Caillou. Caillou either whines or speaks in a baby voice. He’s rarely in trouble with his hopelessly perky and indulgent parents, who are at his constant beck and call. The family dynamic here is the exact opposite of the Mexican Dora Project. The undermining aspect of the authoritarian love is not limited to his overseeing parental units, but all adults that he encounters. An all knowing “adult” to look over his every misstep advocates the advancement of an authoritarian “Nanny State.”

And with regard to Dora the Explorer:

Also, and more genius, is the subtexual context in Dora the Explorer’s lack of parental figures that creates erosion of the American family unit. The lack of effectual parental figures, save for the once-in-a-while-product-placement crossover of her older brother Diego, creates the illusion to a younger age set that parental supervision is not only unnecessary, it in fact, dilutes fun. Any parental involvement in a child’s activity should be shunned and greeted with disdain.

This is especially worrisome in the light of the ominous and foreboding “tween Dora” which was recently announced to the horror of parents everywhere (including myself). This is surely a more insidious scheme: to transform America’s youth into a horde of quasi-self-sufficient purchase-happy fashionitas.

The War Against America’s Kids > Catena Ex Situ

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Joe Crawford from ArtLung sent in this link to a post from Undercover Black Man, which itself links to a seasonal over-analyzation at Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right blog.

Here’s Mr. Auster’s entire article:

As I type, I’m glancing at some grotesque thing on ABC, about the Grinch and Christmas, in which humans interact in brotherhood with a variety of monstrous looking other species, and a little girl has a tender relationship with an unsettlingly hideous but sensitive and kind-hearted being called the Grinch, and everyone loves each other. This is not our society celebrating the beautiful holiday of Christmas. This is the Liberal Controllers of our society carefully teaching children an unnatural and dangerous lie that they would never believe unless they were carefully taught. How many whites will militate against vitally necessary immigration restrictions in the decades to come, how many young white females will be raped and murdered by nonwhites in the decades to come, because of the message of trusting and loving racial aliens that programs like this implant in them?

As an holiday bonus, one can click the link below to read an additional Who-sized comment about the Shrek movies.

Undercover Black Man: Lawrence Auster has a Question
> Catena Ex Situ

Lucas E. sent in this Ex Situ for us to share to the world. I couldn’t significantly improve on his missive, so I’ve just reproduced it below:

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this on your site yet. But, it seems quite obvious to me. Chicken Run is basically Communist propaganda.

A decent analysis of it is contained here:  [>Catena Ex Situ]

The problem isn’t that Mrs. Tweedy is looking to kill the chickens. The problem is she’s trying to increase profits.

The hope of the chickens is not to bargain for better wages, better working conditions, and more time off. Rather, the hope is a worker’s paradise on the hills outside the chicken farm, where chickens can roam free in a world of abundance.

Interesting, no?

Here’s the first in the previously-alluded-to series of videogame over-analyzations. For those purists out there: fret not. We don’t plan on doing these all that often. Our primary focus is and will always be Cartoon Over-Analyzations.

Unfortunately, the closest any of the staff has gotten to playing BioShock is: about five years ago, one of us got half-way through System Shock 2. Accursed monkeys! Along with rave reviews, BioShock attracted a flurry of discussion pertaining to Objectivist elements subtly and not-so-subtly within. Busy game site Kotaku presented an excellent article in early 2008 which discussed the pertinent themes primarily through interviews with the president of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, and the game’s designer, Ken Levine.

“It seems to me that [Levine has] misrepresented what Ayn Rand believes and her ideals beyond objectivism,” [Brook] said. “He’s setting it up to fail. He believes, based on what I’ve read, that any system that is absolutist is ultimately going to lead to disastrous effect. Any system of black and white, any system of ultimate morality. In many cases that true. But I think what lessens the game is that misinterpretation of objectivism.”

Et cetera. Would you kindly check it out.

No Gods or Kings: Objectivism in BioShock >Catena Ex Situ

There’s a delightful article by Adam Gopnik in the latest (September 22, 2008) issue of The New Yorker about some controversies surrounding the Babar series. Here’s a clip:

In the past few decades, a series of critics on the left, most notably the Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman, have indicted Babar in the course of a surprisingly resilient and hydra-headed argument about the uses of imagery and the subtleties of imperialist propaganda. Babar, such interpreters have insisted, is an allegory of French colonization, as seen by the complacent colonizers: the naked African natives, represented by the “good” elephants, are brought to the imperial capital, acculturated, and then sent back to their homeland on a civilizing mission. The elephants that have assimilated to the ways of the metropolis dominate those which have not.

Fascinating. As is the rest of the article, which among other things touches on: a wholly different controversy regarding the fate of Babar’s mother, the occupations of animals, nationalistic representations of order and disorder in children’s literature, and Matisse.

Freeing the Elephants >Catena Ex Situ

Well, here we were, all planning to write up an article tonight linking to and discussing the assorted controversies surrounding the release of Pixar’s newest precious stone, WALL•E, only to find out that The Onion‘s excellent The A.V. Club has beaten us to the proverbial punch. Such is the cutthroat cosm of over-analyzationing. The A.V. Club categorizes the controversies into four groups:

1. It promotes liberal fascism!
2. It’s prejudiced against fat people!
3. It’s hypocritical!
4. It’s too popular!

The staff here was quite fond of WALL•E, and did not find it to be too preachy or damning about anything. We thought it was a charming satirical fantasy encouraging responsible awareness and making connections with others, wrapped around a chewy nougat of sweet romance and amazing character animation. Also, we are so not tired of posting articles about it.

Your Guide to the WALL•E Controversy >Catena Ex Situ

• Here’s a theory you might have missed behind “Casper the Friendly Ghost”.  It goes that Casper is symbolism of homosexuality and the struggle for gays in society.  Casper is a boy ghost or male who constantly seeks the company of other boys or other males.  The boys seem to think Casper is a nice fellow and find nothing wrong with his company. After a short while of cute playing, the friendship is ruined when grown ups, who represent the more “traditional” views of society, intervene. More than frowning on such relationships, they fear it terribly and steal the innocent boy and run away from poor Casper, who is left to seek out the next relationship.
  -Contributed by Dave R.
• In Tex Avery’s “King Size Canary,” a cat and canary compete by “growing” larger with the use a vitamin serum; the bigger one has the edge on the other.  It goes back and forth with no resolution other than running out of serum as they stand on a basketball sized earth.  This is all a metaphor for the US vs. USSR nuclear arms race!
  -Contributed by Dave R.
• There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the fact that Smurfette is the only female Smurf in the entire village. People automatically assume that Smurfette is responsible for the propagation of the entire Smurf population. This is an erroneous assumption, because this theory postulates that Smurfs reproduce sexually. I offer forth the idea that Smurfs reproduce asexually, much like amoebas. I believe that when a Smurf takes off his little white hat, the hat grows a new Smurf, and the old Smurf grows a new hat. In the case of Smurfette, well, there is at least one obviously homosexual Smurf in the village (that being Vanity), so why not two? I submit the idea that Smurfette is simply a cross-dressing male Smurf, and there are no real females in the village. No real female acts that over-the-top feminine. I have converted many unbelievers to this theory, based on the simple logic that it puts forth.
  -Contributed by Natalie.
• For me, the show that brought the whole anthropomorphic vs. realistic animals debate home for me was none other than The Get Along Gang. It struck me as weird to begin with; you stick a moose on his hind legs and he looses something fundamental about being a moose. And Montgomery has antlers, which brings up the issue of whether they could be considered a weapon in his society. But the episode that sealed it was the one in which the Gang ends up in a snowy town where they must search for an escaped elephant. A non-anthropomorphic elephant. From the zoo! I always thought that if you’re going to create a world of humanoid animals, you might as well go all out and populate your zoo with humans.
  -Contributed by Farnie6.