Old School Disney is racist?

[Kage Kisaragi]

Now mind you, I didn't intentionally set out to find this stuff, nor am I saying I've always suspected Disney of being racist. Yet I guess it really shouldn't surprise me during the time Disney itself was new. What I found was at least 3 scenes in (not sure if thats the date, hadn't looked up the original release date yet.) of Fantasia that are clearly intentionally steretypical of how people of African descent are protraited in animation.

If you don't find any offense to these scenes, then fine. The whole idea of art is that not everyone sees it the same as others so draw what conclusions/opinions you will.

Here is the first scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7o9HOSdnR0&feature=related

Here is the second scene,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dnS0bgaf-o&feature=related

Third scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFXDZ-gb-9w&feature=related

There is also the argument that lyrics from Disneys Aladdin Cartoon are racist towards Middle Eastern people.
The link I'm about to post links to a youtube video where the aruthor confronts the issue of Disney being racist.
Which is what got me thinking about this subject in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg2T_t2UtlU&NR=1

[StoneGold]

Hi, welcome to 1972.

[Ryan K]

Like StoneGold said, not really news (plus you forgot to mention the crows in Dumbo).

Tons of entertainment produced around that time frame feature racial caricatures and stereotypes. You'll have a hard time finding a collection of classic newspaper comic strips that doesn't have a note in the introduction asking people to please keep the images in the context of the time in which they were created (Popeye, Terry and the Pirates, The Spirit). It doesn't excuse the caricatures, but we can't ignore they existed. And we can't suddenly shun the artistic accomplishments of the pieces because the creators were living in a less than tolerant age. 70 years from now people will look back on the entertainment of the 80's, 90's and, unfortunately, today and be appaled how recklessly characters call something they don't like "gay".

[Michael P]

Like StoneGold said, not really news (plus you forgot to mention the crows in Dumbo).


And Song of the freakin' South.

[Kage Kisaragi]

Hi, welcome to 1972.

yeah thats like 8 years to early for me.

Yet the one about Aladdin still kind of sticks out, that was the 90's.

[StoneGold]

yeah thats like 8 years to early for me.

Yet the one about Aladdin still kind of sticks out, that was the 90's.

The point was more you're kind of late to get all righteous indignation about Disney stuff from the 40s. The year was just kind of random.


I mean, screw the crows in Dumbo, check out the Indians in Peter Pan.

And, you know, Walt hates the Jews.


But really, type in Walt Disney Racist, you'll get a list of sites as long as your arm.

[ultramandingo]

........... heck the krauts used to paint micky on their bombers
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg106/ultramandingo/JesusLizardThe_tg347display_72_380x.jpg

[AARON4576]

Anime is just about as racist with their black characters having over-sized red lips,tiny eyeballs,and really really dark skin (example:Balrog from Street Fighter)! Being a black person myself ,I shrugged it off and still enjoyed old school anime even though I disliked how we were represented.:rolleyes:

[Joe Rice]

Anime is just about as racist with their black characters having over-sized red lips,tiny eyeballs,and really really dark skin (example:Balrog from Street Fighter)! Being a black person myself ,I shrugged it off and still enjoyed old school anime even though I disliked how we were represented.:rolleyes:

Anime isn't racist. The goddam nips are racist.

[Ryan K]

Wait, I thought anime was sexist.

I'm so confused.

[Ontir]

I thought maybe this was about the Song of the South.

[SensorBoy]

I think it was HBO (?) that had a series called Fairy Tales For Every Child...

Lovely show, all told......except that it should have been called Fair Tales For Every nonwhite Child. The gimmick being that the classical fairy tales in question (Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Goldilocks, etc) were "recast" away from their standard european roots (so you had a Latina Cinderella, a Black Goldilocks, etc). So no caucasian-cast Rikki-tikki-tavi or Panchatantra, as that would have been "cultural appropriation", but we do get a Puerto Rican (female) Robin Hood.

Although the show content itself was good, it was a little jarring to see a purportedly inclusive show aimed at children do the very thing mainstream shows are accused of...."painting out" the nontarget ethnicities (in this case, white kids, as evidently the big-ticket fairy tale movies overrepresent white kids to such an extent that they are not in the category of "every child").


(admittedly, some recasts fit, particularly the Inuit-themed Snow Queen).

[StoneGold]

I think it was HBO (?) that had a series called Fairy Tales For Every Child...

Lovely show, all told......except that it should have been called Fair Tales For Every nonwhite Child. The gimmick being that the classical fairy tales in question (Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Goldilocks, etc) were "recast" away from their standard european roots (so you had a Latina Cinderella, a Black Goldilocks, etc). So no caucasian-cast Rikki-tikki-tavi or Panchatantra, as that would have been "cultural appropriation", but we do get a Puerto Rican (female) Robin Hood.


Big deal, Puerto Ricans stealing stuff.

[Mike Smith]

Such portrayals were not surprising in pre and close to post civil rights media in the states, and you'll surely find more examples today.

You can look at Merry Melodies as well. A lot of the old cartoons have some pretty blatantly racist stuff; it's just part of our history.

Even in comic media, a guy named Superman seemed to be a happy proponent of things like Executive Order 9066, using less than favorable language (by today's standards especially) to refer to Americans of Japanese descent.

[StoneGold]

You can look at Merry Melodies as well. A lot of the old cartoons have some pretty blatantly racist stuff; it's just part of our history.

E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIP4WY8FhUk

[DeadXMan]

And Song of the freakin' South.

you mean the movie that lead James Baskett to be the first African American to be awared an Oscar?


I'll take SotS over Soul plane and who's your Caddy.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I think it was HBO (?) that had a series called Fairy Tales For Every Child...

Lovely show, all told......except that it should have been called Fair Tales For Every nonwhite Child. The gimmick being that the classical fairy tales in question (Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Goldilocks, etc) were "recast" away from their standard european roots (so you had a Latina Cinderella, a Black Goldilocks, etc). So no caucasian-cast Rikki-tikki-tavi or Panchatantra, as that would have been "cultural appropriation", but we do get a Puerto Rican (female) Robin Hood.

Although the show content itself was good, it was a little jarring to see a purportedly inclusive show aimed at children do the very thing mainstream shows are accused of...."painting out" the nontarget ethnicities (in this case, white kids, as evidently the big-ticket fairy tale movies overrepresent white kids to such an extent that they are not in the category of "every child").


(admittedly, some recasts fit, particularly the Inuit-themed Snow Queen).

Oh, cry me a river. Every other adaptation of fairy tales features exclusively white characters, except when the plot requires a character to be nonwhite. Surely there is room for one version of a fairy tale that features no white characters.

[StoneGold]

Oh, cry me a river. Every other adaptation of fairy tales features exclusively white characters, except when the plot requires a character to be nonwhite. Surely there is room for one version of a fairy tale that features no white characters.

You mean like when they do one of those theme episodes on the Simpsons where they play all the parts? Because they're yellow.

[Sir Tim Drake]

And yes, unfortunately, racist depictions of black people were very common in older cartoons as well as comic books. Within comics, Will Eisner, Herge, Carl Barks and Osamu Tezuka have all come under a lot of criticism for the way they portrayed black people.

[rick]

you mean the movie that lead James Baskett to be the first African American to be awared an Oscar?



Baskett did not win anything, he was awarded an "honorary" Oscar for his work as Uncle Remus.

Besides that Hattie McDaniel was the first black person to win an Oscar seven years earlier for her role in Gone With the Wind.

[The Black Guardian]

That Coal Black has been included in the Censored 11 all of these years is a tremendous travesty. It really wasn't racist. It was a sign of the times, and really doesn't portray black people derogatorily. Not only it not racist, but it was an attempt to knock down the walls in Hollywood concerning race. Artistically, it's probably the single best cartoon Warner Brothers ever produced. It's a shame there aren't 100 more WB cartoons as excellent as it.

[DeadXMan]

yes so did Akria Kurosawa.

through the miracle of Youtube.

which is worse


song of the south
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw
or
Soul plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkIuU84I10s

[rick]

yes so did Akria Kurosawa.

through the miracle of Youtube.

which is worse


song of the south
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw
or
Soul plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkIuU84I10s


Song of the South is the more racist by far.

It is a film made by white people that treats black people as child like innocents happily working away in the Masters fields.

Soul Plane on the other hand is a low brow comedy written, starring and directed by black people and primarily aimed at a black audience.

It might be tasteless and not very funny, but it isn’t racist.

Context son, remember the context.

[SensorBoy]

Oh, cry me a river. Every other adaptation of fairy tales features exclusively white characters, except when the plot requires a character to be nonwhite. Surely there is room for one version of a fairy tale that features no white characters.

I'm fine with the content. Most of the stories (several dozen episodes) were top notch.

It's simply that they went to (fairly exhaustive) lengths to avoid a specific ethnicity, in contravention of how the show was presented.

Had they recast an African or Asian (or Central American) fairy tale with white kids, it would have fit in with the theme and allowed the show to not be deliberately (and rather hilariously, given it's title*) exclusionary. Surely there is room for one version of The History of Gherib and His Brother Agib (from 1,001 Nights) with white kids, in a show purportedly about transplanting fairy tales from their standard cultures (i.e. ...for every child)?

*- Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child

[StoneGold]

Song of the South is the more racist by far.

It is a film made by white people that treats black people as child like innocents happily working away in the Masters fields.

Soul Plane on the other hand is a low brow comedy written, starring and directed by black people and primarily aimed at a black audience.

It might be tasteless and not very funny, but it isn’t racist.

Context son, remember the context.

Which is more racist though, Song of the South, or the system that makes it so that only minstrel pieces of crap like Soul Plane get made?



Although I do love that Disney will base a ride on a movie they won't release. I like to call Splash Mountain Rape a Slave Mountain. But more in a sub/dom kind of way, what with Brer Bear all tied up presenting his ass at the end.

[DeadXMan]

Song of the South is the more racist by far.

It is a film made by white people that treats black people as child like innocents happily working away in the Masters fields.

Soul Plane on the other hand is a low brow comedy written, starring and directed by black people and primarily aimed at a black audience.

It might be tasteless and not very funny, but it isn’t racist.

Context son, remember the context.

so it's ok for one group to further a negative stereotype, but not for another. Isn't that bigotry?

and let's not for get the Token white stereotypes that was in soul plane.

also let's not forget that RDjr almost got an Oscar (should of IMO) for doing blackface.
so what dose it say about today standards

[StoneGold]

so it's ok for one group to further a negative stereotype, but not for another. Isn't that bigotry?

No, it's called making fun of your own, which you are allowed to do.

and let's not for get the Token white stereotypes that was in soul plane.

Yeah, but it's comedy. The point is to make you laugh. Rick's still right about the context thing.
also let's not forget that RDjr almost got an Oscar (should of IMO) for doing blackface.
so what dose it say about today standards

Again, context. The whole point of the character was that he was basically stealing the part from a black actor.

[DeadXMan]

No, it's called making fun of your own, which you are allowed to do.

Yeah, but it's comedy. The point is to make you laugh. Rick's still right about the context thing.

Again, context. The whole point of the character was that he was basically stealing the part from a black actor.

Then why did they use Tom Arnold?

I'm of the opinion that either we all can do it or we all can't. anything else is hypocritically.

[Crowforge]

so it's ok for one group to further a negative stereotype, but not for another. Isn't that bigotry?

and let's not for get the Token white stereotypes that was in soul plane.

also let's not forget that RDjr almost got an Oscar (should of IMO) for doing blackface.
so what dose it say about today standards
Dude you can not win this argument.

[Crowforge]

http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_9-most-racist-disney-characters.html

[rick]

Then why did they use Tom Arnold?

I'm of the opinion that either we all can do it or we all can't. anything else is hypocritically.


Who said that you couldn't?

I can think of all sorts of very different, very funny people who have used racial humor in their work.

Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor for example.

I know we keep saying this, but context is everything.

[StoneGold]

Then why did they use Tom Arnold?

I'm of the opinion that either we all can do it or we all can't. anything else is hypocritically.

So wait, I can't get laid just because you can't?



OOO!!!! BURN!!!! But seriously, society at large says you're wrong.

[DeadXMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojwCmCeUac

[Sir Tim Drake]

I'm fine with the content. Most of the stories (several dozen episodes) were top notch.

It's simply that they went to (fairly exhaustive) lengths to avoid a specific ethnicity, in contravention of how the show was presented.

Had they recast an African or Asian (or Central American) fairy tale with white kids, it would have fit in with the theme and allowed the show to not be deliberately (and rather hilariously, given it's title*) exclusionary. Surely there is room for one version of The History of Gherib and His Brother Agib (from 1,001 Nights) with white kids, in a show purportedly about transplanting fairy tales from their standard cultures (i.e. ...for every child)?

*- Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child

I see your point, but I think there are more important things to get annoyed about.

[Sir Tim Drake]

so it's ok for one group to further a negative stereotype, but not for another. Isn't that bigotry?

and let's not for get the Token white stereotypes that was in soul plane.

also let's not forget that RDjr almost got an Oscar (should of IMO) for doing blackface.
so what dose it say about today standards

Yes, it's okay to use negative stereotypes of your own ethnic group if the point is to make fun of those stereotypes, or to give them positive rather than negative associations. There is a difference between using a stereotype in a deliberately hurtful way, or in an ironic way. It's the same as the difference between quoting an argument in order to indicate that you agree with it, and quoting the same argument in order to explain why you disagree with it.

[Doodle Bob]

I'm of the opinion that either we all can do it or we all can't. anything else is hypocritically.

If only racism could be solved by such a simple solution...

the problem with your supposition is that the same words, expressions, mannerisms et al. mean very different things when they come from different people.

Given the centuries-long context of white supremacy -- both overt and covert - within American culture, a white person using black stereotypes as a means of humor comes across as, at best, awkward (see first season of "The Office") if not blatantly racist. Whereas the very same jokes coming from an African-American comedian would have not have the same effect because there would be little suspicion that the comedian has some other unspoken agenda.

Cultural empathy and semiotics are the keys here: everything that a person says points to underlying attitudes and previous history that is modified by who that person is. White people have a long history of having the "trump card" of the word "nigger", which can be used at any point to instantly show disdain to and denigrate a black audience, e.g., Michael Richards having his spectacularly racist meltdown a few years back at a comedy club.

Another way of thinking about this is the specific context of your family. Most families are quite comfortable with poking fun at each other and even making broad humorous statements about all members of their family. However, if someone else outside of your family were to come to, say, a family reunion and start making the same jokes, chances are that it would be perceived very negatively.

Back to the main topic, though: a lot of old school Disney and other cartoons were pretty racist. It is good that you have discovered this on your own.

Many people seem to take a very fatalistic attitude towards this, which is to say, "Big whoop, everyone was racist back then." But that's really not true, and I always thought that it would be interesting to see what full range of reactions of these cartoons were back then -- after all, as time went on, less and less really racist cartoons were made. So, there seems to have been some market reaction against extreme racism.

[jesse_custer]

Disney makes cartoons?

[Slam_Bradley]

Disney makes cartoons?

Not any more.


And you can bitch about Song of the South being racist all you want. Trying to hide it and pretend it doesn't exist is absurd and intellectually lazy.

[Joe Rice]

I can see why they wouldn't want it available though. Just because they made it once doesn't mean they need to sell it forever.

[kalorama]

Many people seem to take a very fatalistic attitude towards this, which is to say, "Big whoop, everyone was racist back then." But that's really not true, and I always thought that it would be interesting to see what full range of reactions of these cartoons were back then -- after all, as time went on, less and less really racist cartoons were made. So, there seems to have been some market reaction against extreme racism.

The decline in the overtly racist content in entertainment had little to do with a market reaction and almost everything to do with an overall cultural change in attitudes. A change that was slow in its development.

[Slam_Bradley]

I can see why they wouldn't want it available though. Just because they made it once doesn't mean they need to sell it forever.


When they follow it up with a push for perpetual copyright (which is Disney's ultimate agenda) it becomes a real problem. Let's see if we can't have a half-dozen corporations control our entire cultural history.

[Phil Clark]

The main thing is, you can find anything anywhere if you look at it looking for it. Racism. Sexism. Anti-semetism. Homosexuality. Anti-Dentites.

Why look for the negative and call it into the light. Why not look for the positive and shine the light on it.

For example. Song of the south in todays enlightened world can be called racist. But looking at it in the context of its own time, it was ground breaking. It feature a black cast of characters in a time when black actors were not so prominently featured in films.

It's all in how you look at it. See it as a stepping stone towards equality that admittedly should already have been there. But it was still a stepping stone to equality.

Don't look for the negative context, look for the positive context. Most of us today are genuinely embarrassed by what came before. Dwelling on it just keeps those attitudes alive. IMO.

[Loren]

When they follow it up with a push for perpetual copyright (which is Disney's ultimate agenda) it becomes a real problem. Let's see if we can't have a half-dozen corporations control our entire cultural history.

For what it's worth, when Song of the South was released in 1946, the maximum copyright length was 56 years. So at the time of its release, the movie should have entered the public domain 7 years ago, in 2002.

Instead, because of Disney's successful push for extensions, the movie is now scheduled to enter the public domain in 2041.

[Slam_Bradley]

For what it's worth, when Song of the South was released in 1946, the maximum copyright length was 56 years. So at the time of its release, the movie should have entered the public domain 7 years ago, in 2002.

Instead, because of Disney's successful push for extensions, the movie is now scheduled to enter the public domain in 2041.


I don't expect to ever see anything go into public domain again. Based on the current state of the law nothing will pass into public domain again until 2018. Plenty of time for the usual suspects to get another extension pushed through Congress.

[Loren]

I don't expect to ever see anything go into public domain again. Based on the current state of the law nothing will pass into public domain again until 2018. Plenty of time for the usual suspects to get another extension pushed through Congress.

Reminds me that I made this a few years back, after some discussion about the copyright nightmare that the book is caught in:

The Miracleman Countdown Clock (http://www.lorencollins.net/miracleman.html)

It's currently 79 years, 7 months, and 4 days until Miracleman #24 enters the public domain, and we can all enjoy that series legally. And until they publish it, #25 won't enter the public domain until 25 years after *that*.

And that's the optimistic view.

[Slam_Bradley]

Reminds me that I made this a few years back, after some discussion about the copyright nightmare that the book is caught in:

The Miracleman Countdown Clock (http://www.lorencollins.net/miracleman.html)

It's currently 79 years, 7 months, and 4 days until Miracleman #24 enters the public domain, and we can all enjoy that series legally. And until they publish it, #25 won't enter the public domain until 25 years after *that*.

And that's the optimistic view.


I'm sure that Moore & Gaiman's great-grandchildren would be grateful for the protection...if they were actually to ever see any money from the books.

[kalorama]

I've always wondered why the whole public domain transition was such an issue. Really, why shouldn't someone who put time, money, and work into creating something not maintain control over it? Why is "the public" entitled to use and profit from someone else's labor without renumeration?

[Slam_Bradley]

I've always wondered why the whole public domain transition was such an issue. Really, why shouldn't someone who put time, money, and work into creating something not maintain control over it? Why is "the public" entitled to use and profit from someone else's labor without renumeration?


It begins with the fact that Public Domain is the default position. Copyright is a creature of statute. It didn't exist at common law. It is not an inherent right. Copyright laws were enacted to protect the publisher (and the creator to a lesser extent) as a result of technology making it easier to copy works of art (books, music, paintings). The moveable press was the main impetus for the enactment of copyright laws.

Copyright was never intended to last forever. It was for a limited time to allow the initial copyright holder to enjoy the fruits of their work (or the work of those they were exploiting). Even going with the best-case scenario, that an artist retains his copyright (traditionally they haven't) we've now moved far beyond protecting creators. Life-spans have expanded, but most of us aren't living 95+ years. So now we're protecting creators children. And grand-children. And great-grand-children. In theory.

In reality we are almost universally protecting corporations. And not that many corporations at that. The list of copyrights owned by Time-Warner, Sony, National Amusments and Disney seem like almost everything produced in the last century in the U.S. So far from protecting creators, we're protecting the largest mult-nationals in existence at the expense of putting our cultural heritage in their hands.

Spider Robinson wrote a great short story Melancholy Elephants about the dangers of copyright extending too far. Well worth a read at the link below.

http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

[Loren]

Even going with the best-case scenario, that an artist retains his copyright (traditionally they haven't) we've now moved far beyond protecting creators. Life-spans have expanded, but most of us aren't living 95+ years.

And, of course, the 95-year period only applies to corporate-owned works, in which case the actual creator isn't benefiting anyway.

If the work IS actually creator-owned, then protection lasts for Life + 70 years, in which case you're well into great-grandchildren territory. As few of us live 95+ years, even fewer manage to live past their own death.

[kalorama]

It begins with the fact that Public Domain is the default position. Copyright is a creature of statute. It didn't exist at common law. It is not an inherent right. Copyright laws were enacted to protect the publisher (and the creator to a lesser extent) as a result of technology making it easier to copy works of art (books, music, paintings). The moveable press was the main impetus for the enactment of copyright laws.

Copyright was never intended to last forever. It was for a limited time to allow the initial copyright holder to enjoy the fruits of their work (or the work of those they were exploiting). Even going with the best-case scenario, that an artist retains his copyright (traditionally they haven't) we've now moved far beyond protecting creators. Life-spans have expanded, but most of us aren't living 95+ years. So now we're protecting creators children. And grand-children. And great-grand-children. In theory.

In reality we are almost universally protecting corporations. And not that many corporations at that. The list of copyrights owned by Time-Warner, Sony, National Amusments and Disney seem like almost everything produced in the last century in the U.S. So far from protecting creators, we're protecting the largest mult-nationals in existence at the expense of putting our cultural heritage in their hands.



Spider Robinson wrote a great short story Melancholy Elephants about the dangers of copyright extending too far. Well worth a read at the link below.

http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

It doesn't have to be an inherent right to be a right by law. The fact that it has or hasn't always been that way isn't really an argument for not changing it.

Clearly the landscape for publishing, copyrights, intellectual property, and inherited assets are different now than they were hundreds of years ago, so adhering to a standard that was put into place before our great grandparents were born for no reason other than continuity or tradition doesn't have much weight. Publishing rights and ownership are assets, no different really than cash or property. Those don't pass into public ownership as a result of passage of time and they are, for the most part, transferable to heirs as part of an estate. Why should we assume that rights of ownership of creative output should be treated any differently? Especially creative output that was crafted specifically under contracted business conditions?

As for corporations owning our "cultural heritage" . . . if they paid for its creation why shouldn't they own it? The cultural heritage doesn't come from ownership if a physical item or even the rights to its reproduction. It comes from shared cultural experience of that item and its impact on culture. That is what it is and doesn't change regardless of who owns the rights to it.

[Slam_Bradley]

And, of course, the 95-year period only applies to corporate-owned works, in which case the actual creator isn't benefiting anyway.

If the work IS actually creator-owned, then protection lasts for Life + 70 years, in which case you're well into great-grandchildren territory. As few of us live 95+ years, even fewer manage to live past their own death.

I tend to be myopic toward corporate copyright. So I usually look at the 95 period, recognizing that the life + 70 will almost of necessity be longer than 95 years.

[Mike Smith]

so it's ok for one group to further a negative stereotype, but not for another. Isn't that bigotry?

and let's not for get the Token white stereotypes that was in soul plane.

also let's not forget that RDjr almost got an Oscar (should of IMO) for doing blackface.
so what dose it say about today standards

It'd be more akin to the Christian Coalition of America making a child's video about homosexual men, and within the video showing homosexual men as guys who prance around in pink dresses/effeminate clothing, trying to rape every male they see and then all dieing at the end due to complications from AIDS.

Then we compare that too, say, Zoolander (or a comedy film made by a gay producers/actors)and trying to say it's all the same.

The former is harping on stereotypes with the possible aim of furthering an agenda against a group of people, while the latter is using ridiculous societal notions for monetary gain (and laughs) in comedic form, where the intent is not to incite ill-will or the like.

It happens many times in media and it's up to the viewer to be smarter than the propaganda (or parents to be responsible), when it is present.

If I remember correctly, a certain newspaper even made a simian joke about our president.

[Alex]

And Song of the freakin' South.

I vaguely remeber seeing that somewhere when i was a kid, and it didn't occur to me anything was wrong with it.
But i was 6.

[Loren]

I vaguely remeber seeing that somewhere when i was a kid, and it didn't occur to me anything was wrong with it.
But i was 6.

I watched it last month. While it's obviously not the paragon of racial sensitivity, for a movie made in 1946 I personally don't think it's nearly as bad as folks tend to pretend it is.

For starters, while the black characters are indeed farm workers, they definitely aren't slaves. It's a major plot point towards the end when Uncle Remus chooses to leave the farm and move elsewhere.

There's no racism in the film of the sort where black people are treated as naturally inferior to whites, or as offensive racist caricatures. Uncle Remus (who, admittedly, is called 'Uncle' by everybody, which isn't great) is pretty much beloved by everybody, to the point of being the original 'magic negro.' The white son of the plantation owners is friends with a black boy. Several of the black characters are clearly treated as employees, but I can't recall any of them being treated as involuntary workers, or as inferiors.

Meanwhile, the only people in the film that are portrayed as being unlikeable or inferior are a poor white family that would today be considered 'white trash.'

Occasionally the film gets accused of having a song that paints a rosy picture of black plantation labor. This (http://www.songofthesouth.net/movie/lyrics/let-the-rain.html), I assume, is the song they're thinking of. It's slow and a bit like a dirge. I'll let y'all be the judge of whether it's offensive or not.

Personally, I don't think the film is nearly as racist as people tend to think it is. It's certainly not as racist as Gone With the Wind, which *does* explicitly treat slavery as an acceptable system. It has its problems, true, but in the context of 1946, I don't think it's any worse than any number of other creative works from that era.

I'm inclined to think that part of the reason Song of the South gets such a bad rap is precisely because Disney has locked it away. When nobody has seen the film in 25 years (outside of bootleg editions), its reputation depends increasingly on ever-more-distant recollections about the film, rather than actual recent viewings of it.

[The Xenos]

Anime is just about as racist with their black characters having over-sized red lips,tiny eyeballs,and really really dark skin (example:Balrog from Street Fighter)! Being a black person myself ,I shrugged it off and still enjoyed old school anime even though I disliked how we were represented.:rolleyes:
Anime isn't racist. The goddam nips are racist.
Yeah. Crazy slant eyes. :rolleyes: That reminds me of a couple of photos I took in Japanese stores.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/9574/japansambodscn1009lg2.th.jpg (http://img41.imageshack.us/my.php?image=japansambodscn1009lg2.jpg) http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4949/copyofcopyofdscn8882.th.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyofcopyofdscn8882.jpg)

[ForeverTaskmaster]

Not only is Disney racist, but it has also manipulative messages. How many times have I seen Uncle Scrooge treat Donald like crap because Donald hardly has any money? You show that shit to kids and they are bound to treat kids with less money the same way.

[OverMaster]

Not only is Disney racist, but it has also manipulative messages. How many times have I seen Uncle Scrooge treat Donald like crap because Donald hardly has any money? You show that shit to kids and they are bound to treat kids with less money the same way.

I see someone has been reading his Ariel Dorfman!

http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/donaldduck.jpg

[Doodle Bob]

The decline in the overtly racist content in entertainment had little to do with a market reaction and almost everything to do with an overall cultural change in attitudes. A change that was slow in its development.

I would definitely call that a market reaction: changing content according to new cultural values.

[ForeverTaskmaster]

I see someone has been reading his Ariel Dorfman!

http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/donaldduck.jpg
Nah. It's just a little bit of common sense.
Just re-read some stuff you liked as a kid and you will see all kinds of things

But thanks for pointing out Ariel Dorfman's stuff. I wonder what he wrote.

[Slam_Bradley]

Nah. It's just a little bit of common sense.
Just re-read some stuff you liked as a kid and you will see all kinds of things

But thanks for pointing out Ariel Dorfman's stuff. I wonder what he wrote.


How is it common sense to mak a completely unsupported allegation that children discriminate based on wealth because of a comic book? Is this the same common sense that came to the conclusion that comic books cause juvenile delinquency? Or that rock & roll causes suicide?

[ForeverTaskmaster]

How is it common sense to mak a completely unsupported allegation that children discriminate based on wealth because of a comic book? Is this the same common sense that came to the conclusion that comic books cause juvenile delinquency? Or that rock & roll causes suicide?
Just ask 10 random kids who they like more. Uncle Scrooge or Donald Duck. And then ask them why. You will be surprised at the answers.

Juvenile delinquency is not caused by comic books, movies, tv shows or video games. Juvenile delinquency can be caused by various things. One thing can be irresponsible people making children and then not caring about educating them. Another thing can be the environment. And so on and so on. That's common sense.

Rock and roll doesn't cause suicide. The persons themselves are responsible. Life is tough and definitely not fair. Some people handle life better than others. That's common sense too.

[Slam_Bradley]

Just ask 10 random kids who they like more. Uncle Scrooge or Donald Duck. And then ask them why. You will be surprised at the answers.

Juvenile delinquency is not caused by comic books, movies, tv shows or video games. Juvenile delinquency can be caused by various things. One thing can be irresponsible people making children and then not caring about educating them. Another thing can be the environment. And so on and so on. That's common sense.

Rock and roll doesn't cause suicide. The persons themselves are responsible. Life is tough and definitely not fair. Some people handle life better than others. That's common sense too.


And your "common sense" explanation regarding kids, money and ducks was anything but common sense.

[Titan76]

Personally, I don't think the film is nearly as racist as people tend to think it is. It's certainly not as racist as Gone With the Wind, which *does* explicitly treat slavery as an acceptable system. It has its problems, true, but in the context of 1946, I don't think it's any worse than any number of other creative works from that era.

But Gone With the Wind was a story about a woman living in the South before, during, and after the Civil War, so shouldn't it actually have some kind of racial tone in it, if you are going to write a story about that era?

[StoneGold]

Just ask 10 random kids who they like more. Uncle Scrooge or Donald Duck. And then ask them why. You will be surprised at the answers.

And they'll go "Uncle who?"


Been a while since Duck Tales was on the air, and not like kids are the ones picking up Uncle Scrooge comics these days.

[ForeverTaskmaster]

And they'll go "Uncle who?"

That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.


Been a while since Duck Tales was on the air, and not like kids are the ones picking up Uncle Scrooge comics these days.
What has this world come to when children living outside of the United States read more Uncle Scrooge comics than children in the United States? :-) I always thought Donald Duck and Co were americana.

[StoneGold]

That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.


What has this world come to when children living outside of the United States read more Uncle Scrooge comics than children in the United States? :-) I always thought Donald Duck and Co were americana.

They've pretty much always been more popular overseas. Hence most of the newer stuff getting published there long before it ever reaches the US.

[Loren]

But Gone With the Wind was a story about a woman living in the South before, during, and after the Civil War, so shouldn't it actually have some kind of racial tone in it, if you are going to write a story about that era?

True, but the racial tone it strikes is one where the black slaves seem perfectly content and happy with their enslaved status, and don't show any appearances of resenting the slavemasters who own and work them.

The chief complaint about 'Song of the South' is that it paints an overly positive portrayal of slavery, or at least black-white relations, in the South. But 'Gone with the Wind' does so at least as much, if not more.

[DeadXMan]

True, but the racial tone it strikes is one where the black slaves seem perfectly content and happy with their enslaved status, and don't show any appearances of resenting the slavemasters who own and work them.

The chief complaint about 'Song of the South' is that it paints an overly positive portrayal of slavery, or at least black-white relations, in the South. But 'Gone with the Wind' does so at least as much, if not more.

Song of the south takes place after CW

and there are worse adpations out there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_18I936Kag