Charlie Brown Thanksgiving Viewers Upset by "Racist" Scene

[Big Fat Piggy Hitlery]

Tonight, ABC aired the classic animated Peanuts special A Charlie Brown
Thanksgiving, and while many fans tuned in for the warmth of nostalgia to
kick off their holiday season, many came away with a less than fuzzy
feeling when it came to how one specific character was treated.

The special centers around a somewhat impromptu holiday meal that happens
when Peppermint Patty invites herself and several others over to Charlie
Brown and Sally's house for Thanksgiving despite the fact that they're
preparing to go to their grandmother's for the feast. After a little help
from Linus, who convinces Charlie they can have two Thanksgivings, as well
as Woodstock and Snoopy who do the cooking, a friends' Thanksgiving is on.

The meal -- buttered toast, pretzel sticks, popcorn, jelly beans, and an
ice cream sundae -- is served at a table in the backyard, and while all's
well that ends well with everyone ending up invited to Charlie and Sally's
grandmother's meal, it's the seating arrangements at this unusual dinner
that has some fans on social media heated. Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.

It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

Want to see how viewers reacted to the Franklin situation? Read on for
more and be sure to let us know your take in the comments.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Tonight, ABC aired the classic animated Peanuts special A Charlie Brown
Thanksgiving, and while many fans tuned in for the warmth of nostalgia to
kick off their holiday season, many came away with a less than fuzzy
feeling when it came to how one specific character was treated.

Snoopy serving carved bird to Woodstock?

[Trump Meltdown Now]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Tonight, ABC aired the classic animated Peanuts special A Charlie Brown
Thanksgiving, and while many fans tuned in for the warmth of nostalgia to
kick off their holiday season, many came away with a less than fuzzy
feeling when it came to how one specific character was treated.

Snoopy serving carved bird to Woodstock?

Rightwing snowflakes whining again.

Where's my gun?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Tonight, ABC aired the classic animated Peanuts special A Charlie Brown
Thanksgiving, and while many fans tuned in for the warmth of nostalgia to
kick off their holiday season, many came away with a less than fuzzy
feeling when it came to how one specific character was treated.
The special centers around a somewhat impromptu holiday meal that happens
when Peppermint Patty invites herself and several others over to Charlie
Brown and Sally's house for Thanksgiving despite the fact that they're
preparing to go to their grandmother's for the feast. After a little help
from Linus, who convinces Charlie they can have two Thanksgivings, as well
as Woodstock and Snoopy who do the cooking, a friends' Thanksgiving is on.
The meal -- buttered toast, pretzel sticks, popcorn, jelly beans, and an
ice cream sundae -- is served at a table in the backyard, and while all's
well that ends well with everyone ending up invited to Charlie and Sally's
grandmother's meal, it's the seating arrangements at this unusual dinner
that has some fans on social media heated. Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.
Want to see how viewers reacted to the Franklin situation? Read on for
more and be sure to let us know your take in the comments.

I'll trade for the full version where Franklin threatens to bust a cap in Chuck's ass for this disrespect. I remember seeing it! The swearing and threats were not censored by CBS.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).

For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.

There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Non-troll me speaking. This is going to be another case of PCOC (Political Correctness Out of Control). If you watch and listen, there's even kind of an explanation. Remember, Franklin is Peppermint Patty and Marcie's friend and hasn't met the rest of the gang yet. So maybe him sitting separately was more him being shy?

I doubt Charles Schulz meant anything by this too, and I'd love to see Jill or one of his relatives chime in on this.

And they had better not give this special the George Lucas treatment, nor bury it.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Non-troll me speaking. This is going to be another case of PCOC
(Political Correctness Out of Control). If you watch and listen,
there's even kind of an explanation. Remember, Franklin is Peppermint
Patty and Marcie's friend and hasn't met the rest of the gang yet. So
maybe him sitting separately was more him being shy?
I doubt Charles Schulz meant anything by this too, and I'd love to see
Jill or one of his relatives chime in on this.
And they had better not give this special the George Lucas treatment, nor bury it.

I'm more surprised the PC police haven't gone after the "new" Thanksgiving
special with the kids in Pilgrim times. Very religious in tone, and
depicts the historically friendly interactions between the Pilgrims and
the Indians as.. friendly.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Non-troll me speaking. This is going to be another case of PCOC
(Political Correctness Out of Control). If you watch and listen,
there's even kind of an explanation. Remember, Franklin is Peppermint
Patty and Marcie's friend and hasn't met the rest of the gang yet. So
maybe him sitting separately was more him being shy?
I doubt Charles Schulz meant anything by this too, and I'd love to see
Jill or one of his relatives chime in on this.
And they had better not give this special the George Lucas treatment, nor bury it.

I'm more surprised the PC police haven't gone after the "new" Thanksgiving
special with the kids in Pilgrim times. Very religious in tone, and
depicts the historically friendly interactions between the Pilgrims and
the Indians as.. friendly.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Cause they're all aliens! The History Channel, and Kyle Brovslowski told me!!!

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

[Jim G.]

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy? :)

[Jim G.]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

I'm still waiting for your dog's report on how yours went. ;)

[Jim G.]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

I'm still waiting for your dog's report on how yours went. ;)

You do know, of course, that the dog's report cannot be trusted?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

I'm still waiting for your dog's report on how yours went. ;)

You do know, of course, that the dog's report cannot be trusted?

That's what he reports about your reports.

[Jim G.]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.
I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

I'm still waiting for your dog's report on how yours went. ;)

You do know, of course, that the dog's report cannot be trusted?

That's what he reports about your reports.

And you believe him?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.
I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

I'm still waiting for your dog's report on how yours went. ;)

You do know, of course, that the dog's report cannot be trusted?

That's what he reports about your reports.

And you believe him?

As much as I believe you. ;)

[Jim G.]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.
You do know, of course, that the dog's report cannot be trusted?

That's what he reports about your reports.

And you believe him?

As much as I believe you. ;)

You should *never* believe him as completely and unreservedly as that.
Hey, wait a minute...

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Jim G.
You do know, of course, that the dog's report cannot be trusted?

That's what he reports about your reports.

And you believe him?

As much as I believe you. ;)

You should *never* believe him as completely and unreservedly as that.
Hey, wait a minute...

hee hee hee

[Rhino]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy?  :)

I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

As a wise man once said, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a
frontal lobotomy!

[Jim G.]

Post by Rhino

Post by Jim G.

Post by Jim G.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Such an opinion does not allow for OUTRAGE! and is therefore
unacceptable. We must assume that we can read dead minds and that those
dead minds were full of evil, racist thoughts. Seriously, have you
*still* not fixed the problem that's been keeping you from getting the
important memos?

You mean my not giving myself a lobotomy?  :)

I was thinking more along the lines of subscribing to the Memos email
list under a different email address after making sure that you have the
secret handshake down to a science. But sure, a self-lobotomy might
work, and it's certainly thinking outside the box. Let us know how it
turns out! :)

As a wise man once said, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a
frontal lobotomy!

Yeah, where self-medicating is concerned, I'll take a bottle over a
self-lobotomy every time! To paraphrase someone else in another context,
at least I'll be sober again in the morning.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 11:43:27 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

Everybody's face ... except Franklin's, presumably.

[David Johnston]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

I haven't seen it in a few years. As I recall, Franklin was a last
minute guest invited by Peppermint Patty. Charlie Brown didn't know him
as he went to her school. I don't even recall that he was on her
baseball team.
He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.
If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

I haven't seen it in a few years. As I recall, Franklin was a last
minute guest invited by Peppermint Patty. Charlie Brown didn't know him
as he went to her school. I don't even recall that he was on her
baseball team.
He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

I don't remember him at all, then.

Post by David Johnston

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.
If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

[David Johnston]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

I haven't seen it in a few years. As I recall, Franklin was a last
minute guest invited by Peppermint Patty. Charlie Brown didn't know him
as he went to her school. I don't even recall that he was on her
baseball team.
He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

I don't remember him at all, then.

As I said "least interesting". But here's the strip where he was
introduced.

Loading Image...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
22 Nov 2018 11:33:50 -0800 (PST), Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well.

A Charlie

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

I haven't seen it in a few years. As I recall, Franklin was a last
minute guest invited by Peppermint Patty. Charlie Brown didn't know him
as he went to her school. I don't even recall that he was on her
baseball team.
He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

I don't remember him at all, then.

As I said "least interesting". But here's the strip where he was
introduced.
https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2015/12/franklin-comic.jpg

Oh. You know what? I do remember that sequence. Thanks.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

Post by David Johnston

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?

He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

Post by David Johnston

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

Post by David Johnston

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.

But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.

You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

LOL! No wonder they didn't sit with Franklin! They wanted some blockhead booty!

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

What did those two do besides comparing how beautiful they looked? Since
when is that gay when women do it?

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

At age 7?

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:21:25 -0700, David Johnston
<snippo>

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Yes he was. Actually Schulz wrote about how he got a letter from a
southern newspaper editor who told him "I don't mind you having have a
black character, but please don't show them in school together." Mind
you he was the least interesting Peanuts character since he was the only
one who was totally devoid of personality quirks.

Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.

If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

What did those two do besides comparing how beautiful they looked? Since
when is that gay when women do it?

I'm not saying anything about Violet beyond that I remembered and liked her.
All we had to compare her to at the time was Lucy!

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

At age 7?

Isn't that the best current politically correct thinking?

[Jim G.]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.
Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.
Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

[danny burstein]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

It's only Sunday, but people are going to have to work
really, really, hard to beat this entry...

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.
Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.
Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

[Jim G.]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

She was aware of his existence, but if she liked him, she kept it to
herself. But that's still better than his own impression, which was that
she didn't even know that he was alive.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I really hope it was Waverly who dressed me, but the gloves scream
Jeremy." -- Wynonna Earp, WYNONNA EARP

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

She was aware of his existence, but if she liked him, she kept it to
herself. But that's still better than his own impression, which was that
she didn't even know that he was alive.

You can argue whether it's canon or not, but the CGI movie finally put one
in CB's "win" column here.

[Jim G.]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

She was aware of his existence, but if she liked him, she kept it to
herself. But that's still better than his own impression, which was that
she didn't even know that he was alive.

You can argue whether it's canon or not, but the CGI movie finally put one
in CB's "win" column here.

Really? Wow. I'm ambivalent on both fronts -- both in terms of whether
it *should be* canon and on whether they did CB a service here.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

She was aware of his existence, but if she liked him, she kept it to
herself. But that's still better than his own impression, which was that
she didn't even know that he was alive.

You can argue whether it's canon or not, but the CGI movie finally put one
in CB's "win" column here.

Really? Wow. I'm ambivalent on both fronts -- both in terms of whether
it *should be* canon and on whether they did CB a service here.

I thought it was generally well done and true to the spirit of the
comic and classic animated shows. It did make an interesting case
that in some cases CB's loser-dom comes from his big heart (the
talent show) and the malice of fate (the book report) rather than
being entirely self-generated. I thought it was a slightly novel
take, but it worked for me as did the idea that "of course the Little
Red Haired Girl is not a dunce -- it's a small class, she knows who CB
is, and she can interpret events as well as anyone else."

[Jim G.]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

She was aware of his existence, but if she liked him, she kept it to
herself. But that's still better than his own impression, which was that
she didn't even know that he was alive.

You can argue whether it's canon or not, but the CGI movie finally put one
in CB's "win" column here.

Really? Wow. I'm ambivalent on both fronts -- both in terms of whether
it *should be* canon and on whether they did CB a service here.

I thought it was generally well done and true to the spirit of the
comic and classic animated shows. It did make an interesting case
that in some cases CB's loser-dom comes from his big heart (the
talent show) and the malice of fate (the book report) rather than
being entirely self-generated. I thought it was a slightly novel
take, but it worked for me as did the idea that "of course the Little
Red Haired Girl is not a dunce -- it's a small class, she knows who CB
is, and she can interpret events as well as anyone else."

AFAIAC, the world of CB ended with Schultz's death, so I had no desire
to see the movie. As for the LRHG, I would have thought that the only
way that she would have known of his feelings is if she caught him being
all stalker-y from across the playground. Which would be pretty creepy.
I'm pretty sure that he confided in Linus at one point, but Linus was
too cool to betray a confidence like that. And other than that, we only
have CB's inner monologues and his conversations with himself on the
matter, and the LRHG would not have been privy to those.

Interestingly, one of my On This Day sites reminded me this morning that
today is Schulz's birthday. I ended up on his Wikipedia page where I saw
this:

QUOTE
Schulz was asked if, in his final Peanuts strip, Charlie Brown would
finally get to kick the football after so many decades (one of the many
recurring themes in Peanuts was Charlie Brown's attempts to kick a
football while Lucy was holding it, only to have Lucy pull it back at
the last moment, causing him to fall on his back). His response, "Oh,
no. Definitely not. I couldn't have Charlie Brown kick that football;
that would be a terrible disservice to him after nearly half a century."
But in a December 1999 interview, holding back tears, Schulz recounted
the moment when he signed his final strip, saying, "All of a sudden I
thought, 'You know, that poor, poor kid, he never even got to kick the
football. What a dirty trick—he never had a chance to kick the football.'"
END QUOTE

So it would seem that I'm not alone when it comes to ambivalence over
CB's frustrations. And then there was this today, as well:

https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2018/11/26

I'm seeing a sad pattern here...

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Jim G.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this,
he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

She was aware of his existence, but if she liked him, she kept it to
herself. But that's still better than his own impression, which was that
she didn't even know that he was alive.

You can argue whether it's canon or not, but the CGI movie finally put one
in CB's "win" column here.

Really? Wow. I'm ambivalent on both fronts -- both in terms of whether
it *should be* canon and on whether they did CB a service here.

I thought it was generally well done and true to the spirit of the
comic and classic animated shows. It did make an interesting case
that in some cases CB's loser-dom comes from his big heart (the
talent show) and the malice of fate (the book report) rather than
being entirely self-generated. I thought it was a slightly novel
take, but it worked for me as did the idea that "of course the Little
Red Haired Girl is not a dunce -- it's a small class, she knows who CB
is, and she can interpret events as well as anyone else."

AFAIAC, the world of CB ended with Schultz's death, so I had no desire
to see the movie. As for the LRHG, I would have thought that the only
way that she would have known of his feelings is if she caught him being
all stalker-y from across the playground. Which would be pretty creepy.
I'm pretty sure that he confided in Linus at one point, but Linus was
too cool to betray a confidence like that. And other than that, we only
have CB's inner monologues and his conversations with himself on the
matter, and the LRHG would not have been privy to those.
Interestingly, one of my On This Day sites reminded me this morning that
today is Schulz's birthday. I ended up on his Wikipedia page where I saw
QUOTE
Schulz was asked if, in his final Peanuts strip, Charlie Brown would
finally get to kick the football after so many decades (one of the many
recurring themes in Peanuts was Charlie Brown's attempts to kick a
football while Lucy was holding it, only to have Lucy pull it back at
the last moment, causing him to fall on his back). His response, "Oh,
no. Definitely not. I couldn't have Charlie Brown kick that football;
that would be a terrible disservice to him after nearly half a century."
But in a December 1999 interview, holding back tears, Schulz recounted
the moment when he signed his final strip, saying, "All of a sudden I
thought, 'You know, that poor, poor kid, he never even got to kick the
football. What a dirty trick—he never had a chance to kick the football.'"
END QUOTE
So it would seem that I'm not alone when it comes to ambivalence over
https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2018/11/26
I'm seeing a sad pattern here...

Schulz gave an interview near the end, where he said that the animated stuff
would end when he died, and one of the rat bastards in charge - either
Melendez or Mendez - said right in front of him that they were going to go on
making their crap against his wishes once he was dead, because how was he
going to stop them?

[Jim G.]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.
Really? Wow. I'm ambivalent on both fronts -- both in terms of whether
it *should be* canon and on whether they did CB a service here.

I thought it was generally well done and true to the spirit of the
comic and classic animated shows. It did make an interesting case
that in some cases CB's loser-dom comes from his big heart (the
talent show) and the malice of fate (the book report) rather than
being entirely self-generated. I thought it was a slightly novel
take, but it worked for me as did the idea that "of course the Little
Red Haired Girl is not a dunce -- it's a small class, she knows who CB
is, and she can interpret events as well as anyone else."

AFAIAC, the world of CB ended with Schultz's death, so I had no desire
to see the movie. As for the LRHG, I would have thought that the only
way that she would have known of his feelings is if she caught him being
all stalker-y from across the playground. Which would be pretty creepy.
I'm pretty sure that he confided in Linus at one point, but Linus was
too cool to betray a confidence like that. And other than that, we only
have CB's inner monologues and his conversations with himself on the
matter, and the LRHG would not have been privy to those.
Interestingly, one of my On This Day sites reminded me this morning that
today is Schulz's birthday. I ended up on his Wikipedia page where I saw
QUOTE
Schulz was asked if, in his final Peanuts strip, Charlie Brown would
finally get to kick the football after so many decades (one of the many
recurring themes in Peanuts was Charlie Brown's attempts to kick a
football while Lucy was holding it, only to have Lucy pull it back at
the last moment, causing him to fall on his back). His response, "Oh,
no. Definitely not. I couldn't have Charlie Brown kick that football;
that would be a terrible disservice to him after nearly half a century."
But in a December 1999 interview, holding back tears, Schulz recounted
the moment when he signed his final strip, saying, "All of a sudden I
thought, 'You know, that poor, poor kid, he never even got to kick the
football. What a dirty trick—he never had a chance to kick the football.'"
END QUOTE
So it would seem that I'm not alone when it comes to ambivalence over
https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2018/11/26
I'm seeing a sad pattern here...

Schulz gave an interview near the end, where he said that the animated stuff
would end when he died, and one of the rat bastards in charge - either
Melendez or Mendez - said right in front of him that they were going to go on
making their crap against his wishes once he was dead, because how was he
going to stop them?

Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Jim G.
Really? Wow. I'm ambivalent on both fronts -- both in terms of whether
it *should be* canon and on whether they did CB a service here.

I thought it was generally well done and true to the spirit of the
comic and classic animated shows. It did make an interesting case
that in some cases CB's loser-dom comes from his big heart (the
talent show) and the malice of fate (the book report) rather than
being entirely self-generated. I thought it was a slightly novel
take, but it worked for me as did the idea that "of course the Little
Red Haired Girl is not a dunce -- it's a small class, she knows who CB
is, and she can interpret events as well as anyone else."

AFAIAC, the world of CB ended with Schultz's death, so I had no desire
to see the movie. As for the LRHG, I would have thought that the only
way that she would have known of his feelings is if she caught him being
all stalker-y from across the playground. Which would be pretty creepy.
I'm pretty sure that he confided in Linus at one point, but Linus was
too cool to betray a confidence like that. And other than that, we only
have CB's inner monologues and his conversations with himself on the
matter, and the LRHG would not have been privy to those.
Interestingly, one of my On This Day sites reminded me this morning that
today is Schulz's birthday. I ended up on his Wikipedia page where I saw
QUOTE
Schulz was asked if, in his final Peanuts strip, Charlie Brown would
finally get to kick the football after so many decades (one of the many
recurring themes in Peanuts was Charlie Brown's attempts to kick a
football while Lucy was holding it, only to have Lucy pull it back at
the last moment, causing him to fall on his back). His response, "Oh,
no. Definitely not. I couldn't have Charlie Brown kick that football;
that would be a terrible disservice to him after nearly half a century."
But in a December 1999 interview, holding back tears, Schulz recounted
the moment when he signed his final strip, saying, "All of a sudden I
thought, 'You know, that poor, poor kid, he never even got to kick the
football. What a dirty trick—he never had a chance to kick the football.'"
END QUOTE
So it would seem that I'm not alone when it comes to ambivalence over
https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2018/11/26
I'm seeing a sad pattern here...

Schulz gave an interview near the end, where he said that the animated stuff
would end when he died, and one of the rat bastards in charge - either
Melendez or Mendez - said right in front of him that they were going to go on
making their crap against his wishes once he was dead, because how was he
going to stop them?

Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

But the sadistic untalented outright evil rat bastards behind their shitty
animation told a dying man to his face that they were planning to butt fuck
his corpse. It's times like this I wish there was a Hell.

[Jim G.]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
AFAIAC, the world of CB ended with Schultz's death, so I had no desire
to see the movie. As for the LRHG, I would have thought that the only
way that she would have known of his feelings is if she caught him being
all stalker-y from across the playground. Which would be pretty creepy.
I'm pretty sure that he confided in Linus at one point, but Linus was
too cool to betray a confidence like that. And other than that, we only
have CB's inner monologues and his conversations with himself on the
matter, and the LRHG would not have been privy to those.
Interestingly, one of my On This Day sites reminded me this morning that
today is Schulz's birthday. I ended up on his Wikipedia page where I saw
QUOTE
Schulz was asked if, in his final Peanuts strip, Charlie Brown would
finally get to kick the football after so many decades (one of the many
recurring themes in Peanuts was Charlie Brown's attempts to kick a
football while Lucy was holding it, only to have Lucy pull it back at
the last moment, causing him to fall on his back). His response, "Oh,
no. Definitely not. I couldn't have Charlie Brown kick that football;
that would be a terrible disservice to him after nearly half a century."
But in a December 1999 interview, holding back tears, Schulz recounted
the moment when he signed his final strip, saying, "All of a sudden I
thought, 'You know, that poor, poor kid, he never even got to kick the
football. What a dirty trick—he never had a chance to kick the football.'"
END QUOTE
So it would seem that I'm not alone when it comes to ambivalence over
https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2018/11/26
I'm seeing a sad pattern here...

Schulz gave an interview near the end, where he said that the animated stuff
would end when he died, and one of the rat bastards in charge - either
Melendez or Mendez - said right in front of him that they were going to go on
making their crap against his wishes once he was dead, because how was he
going to stop them?

Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

Post by anim8rfsk
But the sadistic untalented outright evil rat bastards behind their shitty
animation told a dying man to his face that they were planning to butt fuck
his corpse. It's times like this I wish there was a Hell.

Is there a cite/source for that? I'd love to have a definitive link to
the facts of the matter since it's come up in a few places (including
here) before, but I've never heard any mention of it in the "official"
bits and pieces that I've read about Shulz's life and death.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
AFAIAC, the world of CB ended with Schultz's death, so I had no desire
to see the movie. As for the LRHG, I would have thought that the only
way that she would have known of his feelings is if she caught him being
all stalker-y from across the playground. Which would be pretty creepy.
I'm pretty sure that he confided in Linus at one point, but Linus was
too cool to betray a confidence like that. And other than that, we only
have CB's inner monologues and his conversations with himself on the
matter, and the LRHG would not have been privy to those.
Interestingly, one of my On This Day sites reminded me this morning that
today is Schulz's birthday. I ended up on his Wikipedia page where I saw
QUOTE
Schulz was asked if, in his final Peanuts strip, Charlie Brown would
finally get to kick the football after so many decades (one of the many
recurring themes in Peanuts was Charlie Brown's attempts to kick a
football while Lucy was holding it, only to have Lucy pull it back at
the last moment, causing him to fall on his back). His response, "Oh,
no. Definitely not. I couldn't have Charlie Brown kick that football;
that would be a terrible disservice to him after nearly half a century."
But in a December 1999 interview, holding back tears, Schulz recounted
the moment when he signed his final strip, saying, "All of a sudden I
thought, 'You know, that poor, poor kid, he never even got to kick the
football. What a dirty trick—he never had a chance to kick the
football.'"
END QUOTE
So it would seem that I'm not alone when it comes to ambivalence over
https://www.gocomics.com/boundandgagged/2018/11/26
I'm seeing a sad pattern here...

Schulz gave an interview near the end, where he said that the animated stuff
would end when he died, and one of the rat bastards in charge - either
Melendez or Mendez - said right in front of him that they were going to go on
making their crap against his wishes once he was dead, because how was he
going to stop them?

Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

heh

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk
But the sadistic untalented outright evil rat bastards behind their shitty
animation told a dying man to his face that they were planning to butt fuck
his corpse. It's times like this I wish there was a Hell.

Is there a cite/source for that? I'd love to have a definitive link to
the facts of the matter since it's come up in a few places (including
here) before, but I've never heard any mention of it in the "official"
bits and pieces that I've read about Shulz's life and death.

It was in an interview I read at the time, while Schulz was dying but not yet
dead.

[Jim G.]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

heh

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk
But the sadistic untalented outright evil rat bastards behind their shitty
animation told a dying man to his face that they were planning to butt fuck
his corpse. It's times like this I wish there was a Hell.

Is there a cite/source for that? I'd love to have a definitive link to
the facts of the matter since it's come up in a few places (including
here) before, but I've never heard any mention of it in the "official"
bits and pieces that I've read about Shulz's life and death.

It was in an interview I read at the time, while Schulz was dying but not yet
dead.

Bummer. I was hoping you had something so that I'd be able to refer
people to it when they don't believe me.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

heh

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk
But the sadistic untalented outright evil rat bastards behind their shitty
animation told a dying man to his face that they were planning to butt fuck
his corpse. It's times like this I wish there was a Hell.

Is there a cite/source for that? I'd love to have a definitive link to
the facts of the matter since it's come up in a few places (including
here) before, but I've never heard any mention of it in the "official"
bits and pieces that I've read about Shulz's life and death.

It was in an interview I read at the time, while Schulz was dying but not yet
dead.

Bummer. I was hoping you had something so that I'd be able to refer
people to it when they don't believe me.

Yeah. It was probably in one of the hundreds of trade magazines at my office
I threw out a few months ago. Couldn't even find anybody to take 'em. The
only person interested wanted a full inventory so he could see what issues he
needed. So they went in the trash.

[BTR1701]

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

Easily: a conditional bequest. As long as the conditions don't violate law
or precedent-- i.e., a racial limitation or a condition that violates the
Rule Against Perpetuities-- they are legally binding.

[Jim G.]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

Easily: a conditional bequest. As long as the conditions don't violate law
or precedent-- i.e., a racial limitation or a condition that violates the
Rule Against Perpetuities-- they are legally binding.

So he could have defended himself against the people ignoring his wishes
without blowing up his entire will?

[BTR1701]

Post by Jim G.

Post by BTR1701

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

Easily: a conditional bequest. As long as the conditions don't violate law
or precedent-- i.e., a racial limitation or a condition that violates the
Rule Against Perpetuities-- they are legally binding.

So he could have defended himself against the people ignoring his wishes
without blowing up his entire will?

I don't see why not. As long as he still owned all the rights, he could
dispose of them as he wished.

[Jim G.]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Jim G.

Post by BTR1701

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.
Wouldn't that have been up to his widow to decide?

Not if he said no before hand, although maybe she could reverse him.

She didn't seem the type to blatantly disregard his wishes like that, so
maybe he left the IP rights to the others. Still, you'd think that he
could have put something in writing along the lines of "The IP rights
are yours unless you make another animated feature, in which case the
rights go to [someone else]." I don't know how that would hold up in
court, though.

Easily: a conditional bequest. As long as the conditions don't violate law
or precedent-- i.e., a racial limitation or a condition that violates the
Rule Against Perpetuities-- they are legally binding.

So he could have defended himself against the people ignoring his wishes
without blowing up his entire will?

I don't see why not. As long as he still owned all the rights, he could
dispose of them as he wished.

Which suggests that Schulz had no idea what was planned. I'd like to
think that (a) no one was such a huge d-bag as to tell him to his face
that they were going to blow off his wishes and that (b) they were just
weasels as a result, but I've heard the story both ways. ($1 to Shawn
Spencer)

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:17:41 -0600, BTR1701 <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

<snippo mucho>

Post by BTR1701
I don't see why not. As long as he still owned all the rights, he could
dispose of them as he wished.

Yeah, well, that's the problem, isn't it?

If they already /owned/ the rights, say the rights to make movies
based on /Peanuts/, there wouldn't be much he could do about it, even
in a will.

Kind of like the Tolkien Estate being unable to block the Peter
Jackson movies because the film rights were owned -- lock, stock, and
barrel -- by a third party. They were reduced to suing on the grounds
that New Line was using "Hollywood accounting" to deny them their
rightful share of the profits.

[BTR1701]

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo mucho>

Post by BTR1701
I don't see why not. As long as he still owned all the rights, he could
dispose of them as he wished.

Yeah, well, that's the problem, isn't it?
If they already /owned/ the rights, say the rights to make movies
based on /Peanuts/, there wouldn't be much he could do about it, even
in a will.
Kind of like the Tolkien Estate being unable to block the Peter
Jackson movies because the film rights were owned -- lock, stock, and
barrel -- by a third party. They were reduced to suing on the grounds
that New Line was using "Hollywood accounting" to deny them their
rightful share of the profits.

They were almost certainly right about that.

[trotsky]

Post by anim8rfsk
Schulz gave an interview near the end, where he said that the animated stuff
would end when he died, and one of the rat bastards in charge - either
Melendez or Mendez - said right in front of him that they were going to go on
making their crap against his wishes once he was dead, because how was he
going to stop them?

Wow, that sounds like a load of horseshit.

[suzeeq]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.
Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.
Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

He had a crush on her, but she didn't seem to return the interest.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.
Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.
Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

He had a crush on her, but she didn't seem to return the interest.

Mostly because Charlie Brown never had the courage to speak to her. She
didn't know he was alive.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Jim G.

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Sun, 25 Nov 2018 11:05:12 -0700 Paul S

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Which reminds me: was this shown in the South when it first came out?
Or did the local affiliates decide to run something else instead for a
few years?
He probably lacked "quirks" to avoid any chance they would be seen as
stereotypes -- by anybody, approvingly or disapprovingly.
Perhaps they thought that would make their southern affiliates more
likely to carry it.
Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Peppermint Patty was just a tomboy but in love with Charlie Brown, who
rejected her.
You're thinking of Marcie, although sometimes she likes Charlie Brown,
sometimes she wants Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown to like each
other, but seems to like Peppermint Patty too much.

I realize there's been a lot of disagreement on this over the years, but as
far as I'm concerned Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a gay couple.

So the only girl to ever show a romantic interest in Charlie Brown was
just a confused lesbian? Boy, if he didn't have issues *before* this, he
sure does now. He's gonna need a *lot* of nickels for his many sessions
with Lucy.

Didn't the little red-haired girl like him but she moved away?

He had a crush on her, but she didn't seem to return the interest.

I think it might have been one of the cartoons where she turned out to like
him.

This is probably what I was thinking of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Your_First_Kiss,_Charlie_Brown

Watch it all!

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ihna5

[Ubiquitous]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by Paul S Person

He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.
But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.
If anything, Peppermint Patty should have sat with him.

Indeed, as his host she should have.
But that would look like interracial dating, and in 1973 that was much
less acceptable (and not just in the South, BTW) than it is today.

Patty's a lesbian.

Hold it. Patty wasn't Peppermint Patty, but a character in early comic
strips that was rarely used thereafter, but got a few lines in the
television special.

Read back. They were talking about Peppermint Patty. I remember real Patty,
and Violet. I always liked Violet.

Violet? She was a bitch, but not as much as Lucy was.

[Wheel 2000]

That’s exactly right. Many people love to get free stuff without earning them. I guess that’s why a couple of “Democratic Socialists” were elected to office.

Going back to topic, the PC police is at it again, falsely accusing something of racism. It’s gotten ridiculous.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 22:16:10 -0800 (PST), Wheel 2000

That’s exactly right. Many people love to get free stuff without earning them. I guess that’s why a couple of “Democratic Socialists” were elected to office.

Responding to a sig? Fascinating.

Going back to topic, the PC police is at it again, falsely accusing something of racism. It’s gotten ridiculous.

This was not racist when it was made; it was, in fact, quite
progressive. Not, perhaps, early enough to also be "courageous", but
definitely progressive at the time.

That it is now seen as racist is a sign that times have changed over
the last, what, 45? years. This is news to you?

[j***@gmail.com]

Actually, shouldn't A Charlie Brown Christmas be next to go because like Rudolph, it glorifies people bullying Charlie Brown and his tree? Hey don't laugh, 40 years ago, a Peanuts special WAS permanently altered because viewers didn't like Peppermint Patty degrading ol' Chuck.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 03:32:00 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

I haven't seen it in a few years. As I recall, Franklin was a last
minute guest invited by Peppermint Patty. Charlie Brown didn't know him
as he went to her school. I don't even recall that he was on her
baseball team.
He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_(Peanuts)

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

And wrong again...

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 03:32:00 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by Big Fat Piggy Hitlery
Franklin, the one and only
black friend in the group, is seated by himself on one side of the table
while the other is crowded with the rest of the friends. On top of that,
he's sitting in a lawn chair as opposed to everyone else's proper
furniture.
It's... not a good look, which viewers were quick to point out. Many felt
the scene was in bad taste at a minimum and racist at worse, with most
settling into the idea that the special simply hasn't aged well. A Charlie
Brown Thanksgiving first aired on November 20, 1973 on CBS where it aired
every year until 2000. In 2001, it moved to ABC with the rest of the
Peanuts specials and has continued to air annually.

For 1973, it's inclusive and so very advanced (for 1973).
For 2018, it isn't that good an idea, all things considered. Maybe
it's time to retire it. But one thing should be clear: don't /redo/
it, because that will be seen as a profanation of the original.
There will be, I have no doubt, a re-evaluation of many of the early
attempts to show racially/culturally mixed groups in films and on TV.
This is because times have changed, and current reactions are not the
same as those in the past.

Or you can just accept that almost everyone had to be on one side of the
table so the animators could show everyone's face and Franklin was a
nice guy who volunteered to sit in the lawn chair.

I haven't seen it in a few years. As I recall, Franklin was a last
minute guest invited by Peppermint Patty. Charlie Brown didn't know him
as he went to her school. I don't even recall that he was on her
baseball team.
He also wasn't a character in the comic strip.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_(Peanuts)

But yeah, I'm sure the producers meant the viewer to see it as all the
white kids will refuse to eat with him at the same table.

And wrong again...

LOL! All Peanuts matter!!!!