Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-78776.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Why Were Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee Banned From Disney Parks?</b></a> <p>Jim Hill tells the long and interesting story of why Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee were banned from Disney parks for several years in the late 80s.</p>
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 I miss the Pooh character with the honey pot on his head. THAT is the one I grew up with and the one they have now just looks like a generic teddy bear.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: So now we all know why the Tweedles were missing in action for a certain period of time. I actually wasn't paying close enough attention to even notice. You've seen one Tweedle and you've seen them both!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>I won't waste my time on Jim Hill stories - absolutely no credibility.<<< I have seen this sentiment stated many times. Can you tell me the back story that has prompted the emotion?
Originally Posted By danyoung Jim has made a lot of statements over the years that appear to have been completely made up. For me the problem has been evident in his writing style. If you look closely, you'll see that all of the words that he quotes from "sources" all have exactly the same quirky speech pattern that he has, leading me to believe that he's just making it up as he goes. Perhaps some of his stories are true, but I just don't have any faith in him anymore.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I was working at WDW at the time, and Jim Hill's story is essentially correct. The reason given that the characters were pulled from the parks was that Charles Dickens actually based the original characters on Downs Syndrome children. Most cast members thought it was a bit odd, but I remember thinking 'who knew that Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum were children with Down's Syndrome?" In another bit of trivia -- You know that 'Disney Girl' video? (which I haven't seen in about 25 years)... That's me singing back up vocals along with a couple other guys. (seriously!)
Originally Posted By bibliophile >>>The reason given that the characters were pulled from the parks was that Charles Dickens actually based the original characters on Downs Syndrome children <<< Hmmmmm, where to start with this one...? Firstly, you mean Lewis Carroll, not Charles Dickens. And even then, Lewis Carroll did not invent the characters: the nursery rhymme they come from pre-dated Carroll by about 100 years. Secondly the way they look in the original book is down to the illustrator, John Tenniel. Although I'm assuming Carroll gave the pictures his approval. Personally I see no resemblance to Downs Syndrome, nor, having read the actual book (Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There), do I see any hint in the description of the characters. So if Disney really did this, then I think they were operating on an almost certainly totally inaccurate premis!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Sorry about missing Lewis Carroll. -- you're right. My point is that by the reason reached me, a cast member, the story had morphed into what it was.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'd heard this several years ago as well, and had pretty much discounted it as 'slightly possible, but likely just an urban legend'. Interesting that it's at least the same story that was going around at the time it happened. I'm still not fully convinced that's what happened, but it does seem like the most obvious answer.
Originally Posted By prouddad I am the proud father of a 3 year old girl who loves Disney and happens to have Down Syndrome. It's 2011. Mr. Hill's use of "mongoloid" and "retarded" are irresponsible and offensive because he in no way describes them as derogatory terms. In his defensive responses to other readers comments, he still does not seem to genuinely acknowledge how they are hurtful and derogatory. Instead he spreads misunderstanding and prejudice about people who are frequently unable to defend themselves. Check out www.r-word.org/tim-shriver-on-real-time-with-bill-maher.aspx
Originally Posted By Scutr Dictionary definitions: retard: verb form, "to delay the development or progress of" retarded: noun, "a slowing down or hindrance" Mongoloid: adjective, "of, pertaining to, or afflicted with Downe Syndrome; Mongoloid: (Anthropology) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by yellowish complexion, prominent cheekbones, epicanthic folds about the eyes, and straight black hair, and including the Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Annamese, Siamese, Burmese, Tibetans, and, to some extent, the Eskimos and the American Indians I see nothing irresponsible or offensive in these definitions.
Originally Posted By berol I got marked down for using "mongoloid" in the racial division sense in a college English class in 1980. She also marked "Connecticut." Wondered if she thought it was spelled "Conettycut."
Originally Posted By prouddad Right. The definitions themselves are not offensive. But using those words as adjectives to describe a human being is offensive. For example, a faggot is defined by some as a cigarette. But when I state, Jim Hill is obviously a faggot, then it becomes offensive.
Originally Posted By Scutr You're calling him a cigarette? For the record: faggot or esp (US) fagot1 (ˈfæɡət) —n 1. a bundle of sticks or twigs, esp when bound together and used as fuel 2. a bundle of iron bars, esp a box formed by four pieces of wrought iron and filled with scrap to be forged into wrought iron 3. a ball of chopped meat, usually pork liver, bound with herbs and bread and eaten fried 4. a bundle of anything —vb 5. to collect into a bundle or bundles A knee-jerk reaction to what you perceived as an insult is unwarranted when, in fact, it is obvious that no insult was intended by the author of the article in question.
