Censorship Against Animations in America

Why is it that the federal government censors America so well against the animations and products from foreign countries like Japan? Are Japanese children more mature than American children? Or maybe it is because the animations that are being censored weren't for kids, but America made is so by brutally chopping up the stories to have "less violence" and poorly acted dubbed versions. Even cartoons in our own country are being changed for reasons of fantasy violence, use of weapons, use of nudity or sexuality.

The editing of an anime in "American Distribution" describes the process of altering anime to prepare for the distribution of the United States with the right appropriateness for its intended audience...Like what the hell? Was that not previously set by the original producers of the show? The audio and visual content is censored by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), television network regulations and standards, and editing content to American cultural norms for a "younger audience than it was originally intended." They altered things like nudity or sexual innuendo, violence, profanity, possible racism, and/or religious references, which may seem like a good thing, but many of the things are so minor that they don't matter---like that "censors made Disney cover cow udders with dresses and they made Betty Boop lower her hemline so her garter would no longer be seen by the public. Censors sometimes demand absurd changes in cartoon scripts and in completed works," says Karl Cohen, author of Forbidden Animation. If it is not something so slight, it may be so major that they completely change the storyline or character, which is enough to make any crazy fan upset. 

Why do anime fans bother with complaining about the censoring? Anime is not just idealistic characters that shout at each other and say cheesy lines like most may take from it. As Matthew Kizior, author of "Ameritaku: How Goku Beat Superman," states, "I will not deny that some of these stereotypes do exist, yet anime has managed, in general, to stay true to Disney's ideal (audiences capable of understanding the deeper and darker motifs included in his work, beyond the cute animation and catchy songs). Anime is a sub-genre of animation that has captured the hearts of millions of Westerners by giving them rich stories and characters that Western media rarely produces. Using themes ranging from haunted criminal pasts to metaphysics, anime has transcended cultures and stereotypes by giving us stories that speak to multiple aspects of a person simultaneously."

Such great works of art are treated with respect by those who understand its hidden nature behind the entertaining stories. Because of anime popularity, Americans made English dubs for us here, but in a "dumbed-down form" so that kids could also watch with safety precautions. "In America, cartoons are thought to be fore kids. In Japan, anime is as much respected as live-action films, and not at all limited to a specific age group." 

The most popular censored anime has been surprisingly so downgraded for American children, it would be unrecognizable as a kids show out of its origins in Japan. Sailor Moon is the most censored and edited show in American television. "There were some things edited from the series that seem completely unnecessary, such as scenes that depict Serena sticking out her tongue at another character," says C'Loni, author of "Too many Girlfriends: Sailor Moon's Censored Life in the U.S." Many episodes were cut completely out and can only be found in Japanese versions. Sever of the episodes that contained blood had to be brushed over or if there were too much in one episode, they'd cut it completely. American producers were hugely against homosexuality during the time of Sailor Moon's American Distribution. "In the original Japanese Sailor Moon, both characters [Zoicite and Malacite] were male and homosexual lovers, but when the series was edited for U.S. television, a female voice actor was assigned to play the role of Zoicite." They had to change Amara (Sailor Uranus) and Michelle (Sailor Neptune) to be cousins because of the idea of homosexuality was restricted for children. C'Lori continues her rant with: "Another obvious example of this kind of homophobic censorship is the deliberate smothering of Sailor Neptune and Sailor Uranus' romance in the series. I have watched Sailor Moon since I was in middle school and even then found it very amusing to watch how horrible American producers tried to cover up the fact that they were a lesbian couple. I'm surprised they didn't just cut out all the episodes after meeting Sailor Uranus and Neptune, but then the viewers would never get to see Sailor Pluto or even Saturn. So much was removed from the U.S. version that it is impossible to gain an accurate scope of how great an animated show this was and is, and why it gained and continues to gain so many devoted fans."

I know there are those parents that feel safer about their kids watching something that they know is censored and know that nothing "inappropriate" would be played in front of their child. If that is the case, they should just watch some other shows until they're old enough. They can watch Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, Tom and Jerry, Curious George or Sesame Street. Why does anime have to be censored? One might argue, censorship protects the morals of society and prevents negative displays of cultures, individuals, or communities. There are reasons to the age restrictions on movies and television shows that suggest parents to think twice before letting their kid watch something. They have "warnings" and list what the video footage contains. If you are old enough to watch it, then you are old enough to think for yourself and understand the difference between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, and depending on the show, the basic lessons of being an individual in a community. If they really need lessons on displays of culture, individuals, communities, take them outside. Take them on trips. "As kids get older, too much screen time can interfere with activities such as being physically active, reading, doing homework, playing with friends, and spending time with family." 

Some of the things censored by the FCC are fairly reasonable, that being cultural streamlining. Some examples being like changing the Pokemon character Ash from carrying an onigiri (Japanese food item) to a submarine sandwhich---something Americans would be more familiar with. In "Spirited Away, in which Chihiro first sees the bath house, in the Japanese version she just looks at it and says nothing, but the English dub she says 'It's a bath house', and this is due to most American viewers not being able to recognize a bath house, because while bath houses are common in Japan, they are rare in the United States." 

Government censorship on animations and television in general can be both a good and bad thing. Maybe if they just limit it to some minor things instead of changing a show dramatically just to fit the criteria for kids, that would be better for our other fans. In the end, most of the censoring can be quite ridiculous and with such high technology at our fingertips, kids will end up finding the original anyway, so why go to all the trouble to hide it? I find it hard to watch English dubbed foreign shows and movies. After finding the original uncensored Sailor Moon, I can finally understand it as a whole. It's unfortunate that most kids don't get to grow up with the beautiful creation of all those censored animations that is truly an art to be appreciated. 

Commentary on Classmate's Post

Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with my classmate on the argument of working together to fix these climate changes from their article, "Climate Change Takes Precedence." After searching through classmate articles, either about Trump or gun-control, I was relieved to find something different, and over an issue, I too, am passionate about. She writes a well planned article with an intriguing opening statement about news we're all familiar with, adding the argument that climate control isn't in the front runner when it should be. She explains the direct effects with facts from a well respected group like NASA, to help people understand the actions taking place by the atmosphere trapping heat from too much carbon dioxide. If the state of the earth continues, it will begin to turn into the planet Venus---severe heat (hot enough to melt lead), clouded enough to black out the sun, rain acid. "COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey explores, Earth and Venus may not be as different as they seem. CO2, or carbon dioxide gas, smothers Venus in heat, creating a dense atmosphere that blocks the small amount of sunlight that reaches the planet’s surface from getting back out. The CO2 creates an inferno, a dramatic greenhouse effect that makes life on the planet impossible...As a result, CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and our Earth heats up. And while Venus is an extreme example of a planet overtaken by greenhouse gases, our planet is moving in that direction...The decisions made by future generations will dictate if – or when – Earth will meet that fate."

Vaccines as a Requirement?

Let me start off with a quote from one of my favorite sit-coms, the Big Bang Theory in which Penny says, “You don’t go into science for the money;” Bernadette replies with, “Speak for yourself. Last month my company both invented and cured Restless Eye Syndrome. Ka-ching, ya blinky chumps!” Of course, the show is fiction, but Bernadette is referring to DiseaseMongering― “efforts by a pharmaceutical company to create or exaggerate a malady for the purpose of increasing sales of a medication” (dictionary.com). In other words, making things seem worse than it is or expanding diagnosis in order to sell the “cure” and make more money. Most people don’t need all the medication they’ve been promoting. The body is a self-regulating system that is disrupted when taking drugs which will then cause the drug side-effects that, in most cases, seem worse than the actual problem itself.

Vaccines are very much the same in the fact that doctors are pushing people to get them and using fear as power of the people. The national government needs to be more honest about the health of the American people, but the people with the money get to control how things work. Unfortunately, that will end up just making them even more money. I feel that at least give people the choice and not make vaccines mandatory. People have to go so far out of their way to opt out of something that should be a choice. Several arguments can be made against vaccines, but I can tell you that I’ve never been vaccinated or had a shot in my life and have only been sick maybe once or twice a year that lasts about a day. Yeah, sure, I was sick as often as the next as a kid, but that’s because my immune system was building up its immunity to these basic diseases. Once you get sick, you won’t get the same sickness again. Vaccines are samples of the infection injected into your body where the body has to fight the infection to gain this immunity. People have to be jabbed with needles several times with all these “required” vaccines that they may never have to worry about if they just took care of themselves. It’s hard knowing that some people just don’t have the knowledge to understand. They think they can eat junk food and all kinds of sweets and just take a shot and some medication and they’ll be healthy. Unfortunately, it’s more than that, but it feels better―the natural way: exercise, healthy foods, proper amount of vitamin D (go outside), and drink plenty of water. If you find it difficult to get all the nutrients from your diet, I just take multivitamins. Vitamins are another healthy way to fight diseases without having to deal with any unwanted side effects.

There is “proof” that vaccines have helped save lives with charts dating back three hundred years or so, but you have to take into account the way of the world, too―other factors. Three hundred years ago, people did not live in tightly secured homes with air condition and electricity. Three hundred years ago, people had horrible hygiene and wouldn’t bathe for weeks…disease paradise. Germs spread easily. In the 1700s, women only bathed once a year and they peed freely wherever they wanted because they didn’t wear underwear. Just as many people believe vaccines are a much needed cause today, people in the seventeenth century believed “bathing was unhealthy and that soaking in water would let disease enter the body” (“10 Revolting Facts About the 18thCentury”). Movies, of course, glamorize the interesting sense of style or fantastical romance over these revolting facts, which only seem fair. No one wants to escape to a story of horrible hygiene and lack of indoor plumbing. “Bed bugs would have us jumping out of our beds today, but back in the 18th century, it was a very common thing”. This resulted in the spread of many illnesses. Everyone was also infested with head and body lice, “but never fear, they had an amazing cure for this: mercury! 18th century Europe had a love affair with mercury. They ate it, they rubbed it on their skin, and then they went bat**** crazy and died. On the positive side – at least it killed the lice first!” 

My point is that there are more factors involved when information is displayed. What they say about the death rates decreasing since vaccine invention is true, but is it because of the vaccines? Or are we just evolving as humans, building stronger immune systems and better hygiene with a greater knowledge than our ancestors. We are not lab rats to be pricked. At least give us, the people, the option to decline vaccines. I have had my father, a doctor if I may add, sign me off for “religious reasons” as to not get vaccines, because it was “required” in order for me to go to school. All I ask is for the right to have that choice. Seems fair.  

Guns vs. Abortion

John Aravosis brings attention to an interesting comparison going around: "Let's treat men buying guns like women who get abortions." Aravosis is a writer and political consultant, specializing in using the internet for politcal news and comments. John has a degree in rhetoric from the University of Illinois, a diploma from the University of Paris, and a joint law degree and masters in foreign service from Georgetown University. He seems rather credible with having gained a variety of views from different experiences---very well rounded and intelligent individual. Washingtonian magazine’s annual “50 Best Journalists” issue even named John one of “journalism’s rising stars, those likely to have a major impact in coming years.” John has also been titled one of the fifty “most powerful gay men and women in America.” John speaks five languages, and has visited or worked in 29 countries, including conducting lectures and training about the Internet and politics in France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Morocco, Indonesia and Cote d’Ivoire!

John Aravosis makes the comparison of gun control and abortions, both constitutional rights, saying if abortion can be limited, then why not the same for guns? "How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understand what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, and an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.”

The reactions and comments to the article all seemed positive and in favor of this idea, where I, too, must agree. I feel that if the mother cannot take care of the child and the child will be in worse off conditions, then let the parent have the choice to get an abortion. Rape is, unfortunately, fairly common, and I'm certain I would not want to have a child to help me remember that horrible event, yet those who want more freedom with firearms are those who believe abortion is wrong because they are killing an unborn child. They are more concerned with the unborn child than the several innocent people that die at these mass shootings that happen every week, as it seems?

"Paul Ryan's Deal with the Devil", article titled by Leonard Pitts, Jr. about Donald Trump. Pitts writes for the Miami Herald, whom started his career in writing novels. He gained more notoriety after posting his opinion about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, that received a huge response from readers who "deluged him with more than 26,000 e-mails."

Leonard Pitts compares Paul Ryan to a man named Franz Von Papen, a man who struck a "new alliance" with someone named Adolf Hitler, the leader of a rising popular movement called the Nazis. Von Papen considered Hilter "a noisy buffoon," but was "certain he could control him once in power." Pitts uses this to mirror House Speaker, Paul Ryan, having made similar thoughts about endorsing another "noisy buffoon, Donald Trump." Pitts uses quotes by other Republicans to back up this opinion made by even those of the same party think he is not cut out for president, then adding rhetorical questions as a follow up with direct inspiration from the previous quotes. We see Leonard Pitts distasteful view on the subject with the negative list of words he uses to express how Ryan was forced to "condemn his nominee for another spasm of graceless, clueless, classless behavior that has long characterized him."

In the following paragraph, Pitts really seems upset, saying it outright. "Which is bull. When you know a man is adored by David Duke and other white supremacists, when you've seen him tweet racist material, heard him call Mexicans 'rapists' and say the border should be closed to Muslims, you don't get to play the startled ingenue when he says something racist. Does Ryan really believe this guy will be guided by the 'House GOP's agenda?' Apparently, he does. And that's Pathetic." Lastly, he explains the lesson here is sound judgement, to see what is right in front of you. "Von Papen did not. He saw only a noisy buffoon he thought he could control. Ryan should take note. /Because, as it turned out, Von Papen was wrong." I believe Pitts article was quite powerful, having both emotional connection and facts, as well as an influential comparison that should be easily read as a warning. With that said, I agree with Leonard Pitts, and hope that people open their eyes to this racist, sexist, prejudice man, and double check their final decision before voting day.

President Barack Obama endorses Clinton for next Presidency in a nation wide video today, Thursday, June 9th. He explains the respectful rivalry between the two as they went up against each other eight years ago, and the fact that Clinton continued to help in America's decision making even after Obama's win. She is courageous, "I have seen her judgement, I've seen her  toughness, I've seen her commitment to our values up close," he goes on to say. "I know some say these primaries have somehow left the Democratic Party more divided," but he explained how energized he was to start promoting Clinton for president, and then thanked Senator Bernie Sanders for his input and "shining a spot light" on issues like economic inequality and bringing young people into the process. They both share a vision for the bright future of America. As for Clinton, Obama states, "I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office."

Test Post

Hello, all! I look forward to learning with you.