Originally Posted By DisneyLogic Well, for all the debate here and the American preoccupation with how we are and how we could be better -- consider Disney's own "The American Adventure" at Epcot if nothing else -- I still think we stand up better than most in history. All peoples have myths they believe and want to believe, or history they want to remember in a certain way. And, frankly, one reason why Mickey Mouse or an idealized and mythical Thomas Jefferson are so appealing is because they are our own projections: Mickey Mouse captures all of us. That's why I often think digging up the factual dirt, if you will, on historical personages like Jefferson is really besides the point except for maybe Type A historians. Consider, for instance, the evidence of another myth at <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ben-yehuda_masada.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/art icles/ben-yehuda_masada.htm</a>. If we need these characters and characteristics so badly we're willing to "prove they exist" by looking for supportive evidence selectively, why not just admit it and go for the myth itself, for animation itself? After all, aren't "Toy Story" and "It's Bugs' Life" and "Mulan" and "Lord of the Rings" really what we want to believe in anyway? "Abandon the search for fact ... Settle for a good fantasy."
Originally Posted By Ursus J Bear Obsessed? Moi? Hardly. I've never said that non-whites should only be the leading characters in all Disney Films. I'm only pointing out that Disney may not be moving all that far or quickly toward diversity as I may care for or in comparision to other major film studios. OH, so saying only whites should be protrayed is racist, while you are "pointing" out. I still contend that going on about how "diverse" people are is in itself a racism. Everyday many people of many background mingle and go about their business. They don't stand around and talk about being "diverse' with each other. However, standing around and going on about how it is not happening fast enough for certain people's taste, is a form of racism.
Originally Posted By brick1974 "How many black, Asian, or Latino mermaids were in "Little Mermaid" or "Tarzan"? These are pretty recent films, not long, ago in the unenlighten days of yore." First, there were no mermaids in "Tarzan." Seriously, though, "The Little Mermaid" is generally thought to be set off of the European coast, during, what the 1700s? 1800s? Any Black, Latino, or Asian mermaids would have been out of place, and it would have been blatant tokenism for Disney to include them, IMHO. And in "Tarzan" Blacks most likely would have been depicted as a native tribe or as guides. Either one would have felt forced, or wound up in some sort of comic relief role.
Originally Posted By basil fan Interesteing as the assessment of Disney's racial policy is, I think it's beside the point where Song of the South is concerned. If Disney films were the most racially diverse on the planet, or if they were the most offensively stereotypical you could find, it would not affect Song of the South one iota. The question is: is this film so horrible that it can't be viewed? It continues to be available in great Britain. Is it damaging the psyches of those who watch it? Is it causing race riots? Is it increasing oppression of their black minority? What is it doing that makes it too dangerous for the US? Pornography is offensive, demeaning to women, & contributes to their victimization in a very real and measurable way. But anyone who dares to suggest that it should even be regulated in the slightest way is vilified. There are literally thousands of films in this world that should be banned for the public good. Song of the South is not one of them. Donald Duck's Family Tree <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/donald.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/donald.html</a>
Originally Posted By collins316 I think Gone with the Wind is a very racially offensive movie. The "I dont know nothin' bout birthing no babies" line comes to mind. But this is one of the most loved movies of all times. You can buy it on video, and it is shown on TV. Why the difference in releasing a Disney movie?
Originally Posted By u k fan Just to let you know basil fan, SotS isn't currently available. It was pulled a few months ago, though it was on TV over Easter. It was one of the titles that was always available and it had been for years which makes me wonder if Disney has plans for it!!!
Originally Posted By meowthew On a semi-related note to all this, anyone read Sunday's New York Times article praising Disney Channel for being a leader in diversity on television?
Originally Posted By actingforanimators T. Erwyn, As always, passionate observations. May I revisit some questions I posted to the last thread on this subject, to which you didn't have a chance to respond: re <<when it comes to minorites they are either invisible all together or rendered so toned down so they appear to be "white folk" with a great tanning job.>> What departure in character design and realization would you like to see? And how would you define a design that succeeds in specifying a character's race without either ambiguity or stereotype - as well as serving the purpose of both narrative and theme? As I've noted before, I'm sincerely interested in your thoughts on this because it could be valuable and very helpful to hear the solutions you must have in mind. Again, quoting from something I've posted to you elsewhere to which you didn't get a chance to read or respond - because you have a passionate opinion on the subject and the medium, have you given thought about what creative and administrative talent in the field of aniamtion have the expertise and the ability to conceive, develop and deliver a product that presents historical and or geographic truth in stories with broad appeal? Can they produce something satisfying the concerns you've written about, simultaneously reflecting the more diverse and inclusive American landscape, that will appeal to as broad or broader a demographic as the recent fare? And can it show box office returns to justify its cost while playing in overseas markets where these films make the majority of their money? And how would you successfully market this product -- again without homogonizing the campaign? I think your solutions are something worth proffering as passionately as you have your grievances and I hope you'll respond. Thanks.
Originally Posted By terwyn Ursus:"OH, so saying only whites should be protrayed is racist, while you are "pointing" out." Where did I say anything of the kind? What I find interesting is how sensitive several folks here are about someone talking about diversity. Nobody defending "SotS" has giving any sort of convincing reasoning why there hasn't been any film set in Africa showing African people, only animals or visiting Europeans. Unlike the around the world from Disney's Feature Animation is the past two decades. Sounds like there really isn't a good answer or some are happy with the state of current affairs. brick1974:"Seriously, though, "The Little Mermaid" is generally thought to be set off of the European coast, during, what the 1700s? 1800s?" And Flounder(?)and Sebastian appears to be a tropical marine creatures. What in the heck is they doing that far north? Oh, it's fine for tropical creatures, but African, Latin, Asian mer-folks can't stand the cold water? These stories are fantasies and since no one has ever actually seen any mer-folk, why not add a few non-white mer-folks? Wouldn't it say a lot that King Triton's realm was at least as(or possibly more) diverse as America's? Disney's "Little Mermaid" isn't 100% of Hans Christian Andersen's story. Disney's writers and animators contributed "some" to "DLM", how exactly would showing some late 20th Century diversity ruin the plot or theme of the film, when Disney is famous for adding contemporary inside jokes, that will just go over the heads of viewers 50 years from now? It sounds like some here only want to see folks like themselves and want to "whitewash" anything they feel uncomfortable with. Hey brick, would you NOT go see a Disney FA film, if there were a few supporting or incidental characters including in it? "Any Black, Latino, or Asian mermaids would have been out of place, and it would have been blatant tokenism for Disney to include them, IMHO." Well, that maybe be your humble opinion, but how to you square "Lilo & Stitch's" token "whites"? Tokenism is tokenism, afterall. As I mentioned previously, "L&S" is very much different than the vast majority of Disney films because the writer/directors purposefully decided to set the story in a believable Hawaiian local with non-white major characters. Having token "whites" hardly affected the story, they were just an interesting departure from traditional Disney usage of token "minorites"(invisible or stereotypical). My most basic point is: what is the harm of showing more diversity? I think that it maybe Disney's creative types traditionally were much more closely identified with their target audience than the other studios, especially during the 1960's. Disney's is moving slowly in that direction but with great reluctance from both management and their fans (as demonstrated here).
Originally Posted By terwyn "The question is: is this film so horrible that it can't be viewed? It continues to be available in great Britain. Is it damaging the psyches of those who watch it? Is it causing race riots? Is it increasing oppression of their black minority?" You either genuinely don't know or ignore the historical facts. UK, never had American style slavery, since Roman times and hadn't a significant population of non-whites until the 1960's. Because it was set in the US, "SotS" doesn't have the same issues that concern the Brits. As late as last year, a couple of Southern States, were still battling over the inclusion of the Confederate battle as part of their State flag. If you also believe that this is a non-issue, what if a German State decided to add a swastica to their coat of arms and you get the same feeling that some Americans feel about this issue. "What is it doing that makes it too dangerous for the US?" Your hyperbolic queries totally misses my issues with "SotS". It's not that it's dangerous, but that there's no important reason for Disney to release it. If it gets released in the US, I won't protest, or boycott the Disney Stores (if they still exist). It'll be another example of how Disney will show how they are seemingly behind they times when it comes to reflecting what American and World like is like today, not 1948, 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988 etc. For others, unlike you, look on "SotS" as anachronistic and patroizing piece of history when too many people looked at minorities through the "lens" white writers or filmmakers who didn't care or interact with other Americans who didn't look like themselves. If Disney was as good or even better than other Hollywood studios (which isn't all that terribly better), Disney wouldn't look as bad by releasing "SotS" today.
Originally Posted By terwyn "I think Gone with the Wind is a very racially offensive movie. The "I dont know nothin' bout birthing no babies" line comes to mind. But this is one of the most loved movies of all times. You can buy it on video, and it is shown on TV. Why the difference in releasing a Disney movie?"" "GWTW" is a movie classic in almost anyone's book despite the stereotypes, "SotS" is hardly on that level. The Disney Studios made several better movies that "SotS." On almost every level (story, actors, special effects, action, use of color, etc), "GWTW" was a superior film. Remember, "GWTW" was released in 1939 when stereotyping was done all the time (doesn't make it right) and "SotS" was made after WWII and just prior to the beginning of the civil rights movement. That makes it potentially more suspect than "GWTW's" pre-war stereotyping. Both the characters of "Mammy" in "GWTW" and "Uncle Remus" in "SotS" are supposedly positive characters, smarter than most of the white characters. However, they both are seen as negatively protrayals of blacks during the same period of history. "Manny" is a slave that looks after Scarlett and also defends the institution of slavery. "Uncle Remus", an ex-slave, who is shown as not being equal to "respectible" white characters. He's a poor person that, for some whites, reflects the condition of ALL African-Americans up to today. That's where the problem is, nowhere are blacks shown in Disney films of the past and some current on the same level as "regular" Americans. Minorities are non-existant or comedians. Let me turn the arguement back this way: If all white characters in Disney films were shown as villians or buffoons, would that be accurate or interesting to Disney's target market of suburban, middle class whites? Is it wrong to show diversity in white Disney characters? Why not show a more diverse Disney suburban universe? Too jarring for most? On top of that MGM has done a wider range of subject matter than Disney. MGM had done much more offensive films, but also much more diverse films than Disney has ever, so MGM get a little more slack than a family oriented studio like Disney. Also remember there are scores more films made by MGM in the 1930s-1940's that will most likely NOT be released on DVD because of the protrayal of American minorities, so your argument is not very valid.
Originally Posted By terwyn "On a semi-related note to all this, anyone read Sunday's New York Times article praising Disney Channel for being a leader in diversity on television?" Do you have a link? A quote? NY Times is having a credibility problem lately, isn't it?
Originally Posted By narkspud >>Do you have a link? A quote?<< <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/arts/25WEIN.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05 /25/arts/25WEIN.html</a> >>The Disney Channel — part of the same corporation whose 1946 film, "Song of the South," was picketed by African-American groups and has not been released on home video in this country — may have more minority characters in its entertainment programming than any other network or cable outlet.<< and the out-of-context Darkbeer quote . . . >>"Aladdin" (1992) was sharply criticized for its crude Arab villains<<
Originally Posted By actingforanimators T. Erwyn, Yes, sadly Jayson Blair has given rise to the New York Times struggle with credibility. And credibility is critical in both reporting and editorial. To which I'd ask if you agree or disagree with the theory that the credibility of any of the point and counterpoint in this conversation would be enhanced by disclosing who among us identifies as a person of color and who identifies as Anglo? From my personal perspective, I can't pretend to speak with any authenticity about the Black experience as it relates to how Disney characters and stories are received and perceived in communities of color simply because I am not a person of color. I can quote history - and in so doing in this rather shallow (not used in the pejorative) and limited venue elect to cite history in support of my arguments, and I can share what I hear from colleagues and friends and neighbors. I can survey communities of color across all class borders and report the result. But while I may identify as progressive in my views or even exhibit it in my actions, and make continued efforts to embrace a more evolved and enlightened perspective, I still am subject to how my own personal experience tints my part in any dialogue. I must be open to accepting the inherent risks of being the beneficiary of an Anglo or Anglo male, or (possibly) worse - wealthy Anglo male dominated western culture. So my credibility is limited. It is limited by the history of people I did not know but whose power aided my privilege as an upper middle class Anglo man. Since historical evidence is the bounty of what has been laid on this table for discussion I am compelled to note that history both liberates us and limits us in how we share in this discourse. For all of us, History as evidence against or defense of arguments of present practice carries with it risks we must accept: we speak without having the advantage of first-hand knowledge; we subject the issue under consideration first to judgement based on past behavior (whether ours or our predicessors and whether elected or inherrited); and we bars forebearance as an option for either side's attempt to offer recent actions or intentions as solutions as they can not be taken without paying concurrently for past errors. So, you see, I can offer an opinion, but I can not pretend to speak from experience - only observation and translation. Sadly, it is often through the proffering of opinion that anger is conceived. And since personal pain and hurt is seldom quelled by even the most willing or able empathy, the likely result will be that revolt is born. Ironically enough, history supports this. But you speak with such passion and authority, T. Erwyn. Indeed, with such unequivocal certainty that disavows each counter-argument that surely you must be speaking from personal experience that -- to use your term -- "White folks" don't have. It would help so many people reading your opinions if we could hear that your personal experience and perspective is that of a person of color and not as a person of white European heritage. While the latter would not weaken your argument in any way, the former would surely quite anyone who hears only rhetoric and theory rather than authoritative personal experience and would add such powerful and unarguable credibility; credibility that positions you to influence genuine change.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>In the "bad old days", before the civil rights movement, minorites were invisible because they were considered less "valuable" than "whites" were and were subject of ridicule. What's the rational in today's media where they are likewise invisible.<<< Given that African-Americans represent 12% of the national population, I would say not only are those numbers adequately reflected in most media, but that Hispanics and Asians are terribly UNDER-represented in comparison. But perhaps your statement was inclusive of all minorities, and in that case, I'll concede the point.
Originally Posted By Jim I think there is another key in this debate. I have never seen SONG OF THE SOUTH, which frustrates me to no end because I can't even form my own fully-educated opinion based upon my first-hand observations. But, as a child, I had a book and tape of "Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby." Despite listening to that thing and reading it a million times, I never once made the connection between what a tar baby might have been in reference to. I read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN in high school (which is still often taught), and I never understood what Uncle Tomism was until many years later. I never once assumed that people liked being slaves . . . I knew too much what they went through to believe that. I saw DUMBO when I was in high school as well, and it wasn't until after a college education that I understood how the crows were based upon African-American caricatures. The children aren't going to pick up anything. I don't think it hurts to have intros and things about it to ease parental fears, but I honestly don't think kids (or for that matter, most adults) would even realize the controversy. I also think it's interesting that MULAN has some caricatures in it (Chi-Fu, some of the ancestors), but because it is part of realistic whole, it's not offensive. That's the way Hollywood should be.
Originally Posted By Ursus J Bear Where did I say anything of the kind? <<< "Only folks who are content with the status quo and liking what s/he sees in society or in Disney films would say such things." Was the quote I was thinking of. >>at I find interesting is how sensitive several folks here are about someone talking about diversity.<< That is a false arguement. I am not sensitive about talking diversity, but I believe it is an overplayed issue. This is 2003, the not the 1930's, or the 1960's. Your examples about GWTW are out of date and does not deal with this situation. There is plenty of diversity throughout all arms of the media. Disney itself has come a long long way since it's early days. And in portraying racial types in bygone days, these were just the common misconceptions of a naive society, not the willful machinations of a racist society. Though racism was more rampant I agree, but it was due to igorance. As a society, as we become more aware of ourselves and others, then "diversity" is achieved without the intervention of self-styled groups and individuals who are using the term "diversity" to spout their particular brand of racism. Because, to my mind, that is what it is. Standing around obsessing (And it seems you've spent alot of time thinking about it) about lack of races, or too many races, being represented, is taking a, if not backwards step, then a sideways step. Diversity is a fact, and it is representative of a tolerant society. This is 2003 and it is already here.
Originally Posted By Ursus J Bear Sounds like there really isn't a good answer or some are happy with the state of current affairs.<<< This is again, you setting yourself up as the openminded truth sayer amongst the status quo (using your terms). I think I answered this is my last post. This reminds me of a story of someone painting a house blue, and the neighbor walks up ."How do you like the blue house?" The owner asks. "This isn't blue." The neighbor says. "But it is", replies the owner. "Not my kind of blue", says the neighbor, "Therefore, the house is not blue."
Originally Posted By rasvar My biggest problem in all of this is the fact that by not releasing this film, all that is being accomplished is to sweep this thing under the rug as if it didn't happen. Are we, as a collective people, just suppose to try to expunge everything from the past that was protrayed as sometime of stereo type or offends someone? How is anyone going to learn from past mistakes if they are all hidden away from view? Might as well toss the masters of this film on a bonfire with all of Mark Twain's writings. To deny the past is a sure way of making sure it repeats itself. The last quarter of the Twentieth Century and the start of the Twenty-First has begun to created one of the most close minded societies in history in the USA. Not more tollerant. A tollerant society would allow works like SOS to be released with historical context attached to it. When you get right down to it, the stories expressed in SOS are no less viable today then they were when it was orginally released. Possibly even more so. I'm not condoning the sterotypes. Are we going to have to go back over the next 30 years and expunge even more stereotypes? What about all of the WWII movies? My point is that to hold back releasing this film is to deny history. Thanks to the insane copyright laws, this film will not becoming into public domain for another 20 or so years. What is going to happen then[assuming Disney doesn't get it extended again]? The film will be coming again in some form. It should be done with a proper historical commentary and analysis added to it. One side comment on John Henry: According to what I was told by some staffers in Feature Animation, one of the reasons that it did not get a wide release was becuase there was a small but vocal group that complained about the fact that none of the major people involved in the creation of it were African American. I will be honest, I have no independent verification of this, so take it with a grain of salt. However, if there is veracity to this, it is another cause of no-win. They get criticized for not going for a wider release or get criticized becuase no African-Americans were major parts of the production staff. Diversity is a positive idea, when it is not weilded as a way to sanitise history.
