Isn't Princess and the Frog offensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
Thank you for posting this! What a killer re-working of this tune. From Michael's piercing minor pentatonic run at the top to the slow-grooving unison parts by the rest of the crew, it is chill-inducing. Interesting, too, to think about the producer's choice to use it in 1969. Was it some kind of reclamation? A joke? There had been other cover versions of the song, but I don't know how well known they were. I also believe this had Detroit players on it (pre-L.A.). Nice!

Could they just put this in the riverboat scene and call it good?

I feel like putting Michael Jackson in the ride would open up a whole other can of issues. I believe there were fresh allegations against him even a few years ago (no idea if they had merit or not, but I recall hearing about it).
 

solidyne

Well-Known Member
I feel like putting Michael Jackson in the ride would open up a whole other can of issues. I believe there were fresh allegations against him even a few years ago (no idea if they had merit or not, but I recall hearing about it).
Ha, oh yes. And there's even an entire thread devoted to that somewhere in these forums!
 

CaptinEO

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I feel like putting Michael Jackson in the ride would open up a whole other can of issues. I believe there were fresh allegations against him even a few years ago (no idea if they had merit or not, but I recall hearing about it).
The doc from last year was completely inaccurate (laughably inaccurate). So much so they are being sued, and the production company is now bankrupt.

Won't go into detail here but none of the locations, stories, scenarios, or timelines add up to what these people claim. They have been called out on this and refuse to give any kind of evidence or explanation.
 
Last edited:

CaptinEO

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Thank you for posting this! What a killer re-working of this tune. From Michael's piercing minor pentatonic run at the top to the slow-grooving unison parts by the rest of the crew, it is chill-inducing. Interesting, too, to think about the producer's choice to use it in 1969. Was it some kind of reclamation? A joke? There had been other cover versions of the song, but I don't know how well known they were. I also believe this had Detroit players on it (pre-L.A.). Nice!

Could they just put this in the riverboat scene and call it good?

EDIT: OK, I now see it is clearly based on this 1962 Phil Spector production, albeit with gospel-funk replacing the by-then outdated Brill-Building-bossa. A top tenner I'd never heard. Thanks, internet!

Sure! Cool version for sure! Not a joke at all! Despite the modern internet claiming SotS was always some big bad racist movie, it was rereleased in theaters up until 1989. Motown was an African American owned and operated company and chose this song for the Jackson 5 to record.

The Jackson 5 do a great cover of this song, a Disney classic. Gotta love Michael's performance! They even sang it live on a number of occasions.
 

Minnie1976

Well-Known Member
Has no one ever read this as you walk under the train station when you enter the park?
This is what Disney is supposed to be about.
C5AA0B2D-4ABD-4F8F-B569-80ABB59B927E.jpeg
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
Sure! Cool version for sure! Not a joke at all! Despite the modern internet claiming SotS was always some big bad racist movie, it was rereleased in theaters up until 1989. Motown was an African American owned and operated company and chose this song for the Jackson 5 to record.

The Jackson 5 do a great cover of this song, a Disney classic. Gotta love Michael's performance! They even sang it live on a number of occasions.

Big bad racist movie is perhaps overstating it, but those protests at its opening were very real. Controversial from inception.
1593439390940.png
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Has no one ever read this as you walk under the train station when you enter the park?
This is what Disney is supposed to be about.

I agree. Entering Disneyland should be a fun experience for everyone, that lets them escape the real world for a few hours. Having a ride in the park that makes them question their place in society is the complete antithesis of that idea. It's a good reason why Splash needs to be removed and replaced.
 

solidyne

Well-Known Member
Sure! Cool version for sure! Not a joke at all! Despite the modern internet claiming SotS was always some big bad racist movie, it was rereleased in theaters up until 1989. Motown was an African American owned and operated company and chose this song for the Jackson 5 to record.

The Jackson 5 do a great cover of this song, a Disney classic. Gotta love Michael's performance! They even sang it live on a number of occasions.
As @PiratesMansion suggested, all parties certainly were aware of the film's content. But, you're right; it wasn't untouchable. People found interesting ways to critique head-on, including irony and satire.

I have to imagine that the 1962 version was a sly, ironic take, propelled to the top ten by both audiences: the clued-in and the more casual listeners who just said, "oh yeah, happy Disney song!"

Then the Jackson 5 may have shared some of that intent but were primarily just doing a cover version of Bob B. Soxx.
 

cmwade77

Well-Known Member
Lets keep this discussion civil.

Song of the South is considered insensitive due to it being a positive toned film in a time when African Americans were not treated well.

As time went on, the film received more criticism for this aspect than anything and is deemed racist.

With the ride of it's namesake now being removed, I honestly believe its replacement film will one day face the same criticisms as its predecessor.

Princess and the Frog takes place in the 1920s in America. Yet Tiana never faces any racism or issues that would be historically accurate for the time.

Tiana sings and dances at numerous points throughout this picture.

Her mother happily makes dresses to serve a rich white man and his spoiled daughter.

The film glorified New Orleans without showing any of the day to day discrimination African Americans faced.

Naveen is an African American male who grew up having servants fill his every need and is considered lazy and has to seek out a rich girl to marry.

The character's interactions with Caucasians are positive and not at all representative of what things were really like at the time, white washing the truth about the 1920s.

Can anyone else see this being an issue down the line? Princess and the Frog is typical Disney fare and glorifies a time period and does nothing to address reality.

I don't see how these issues won't come up in the future. IMO the only way to avoid controversy is to make an "honest/darker" film (which is not Disney's style), or to avoid early American stories all together.
Naveen is not African American, he is of Latin decent, they are mixed race couple which would come with its own set of issues that are not discussed in the film.
 

Minnie1976

Well-Known Member
I agree. Entering Disneyland should be a fun experience for everyone, that lets them escape the real world for a few hours. Having a ride in the park that makes them question their place in society is the complete antithesis of that idea. It's a good reason why Splash needs to be removed and replaced.
Y’all really don’t know what the real story of splash mountain is. It is really a shame no one looks further than their nose. If they would, they would realize this is the slaves’ own stories they are getting rid of. You have to look passed the movie. What a shame!
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Y’all really don’t know what the real story of splash mountain is. It is really a shame no one looks further than their nose. If they would, they would realize this is the slaves’ own stories they are getting rid of. You have to look passed the movie. What a shame!

Maybe the point is that a group of people don't want to be reminded that their ancestors were enslaved when they come to have fun at a theme park?
 

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
Except Jungle Flight came out in 1947. Song of the South came out in 1946. So they could be protesting Jungle Flight for its male chauvinism.

Hmm. I did find a zoom of the protest photo that I've linked to below from the Oakland Museum's website, as this photo came from Oakland, CA (for whatever reason it won't allow me to attach the zoomed image directly into the post). According to their site, the picture was taken on April 2, 1947. For SOTS, that would still make sense: film distribution wasn't necessarily the same as it is today, in that a film did not open wide everywhere on the same day as it is now and there was often a delay before different parts of the country received movies. Reportedly Jungle Flight was finished in 1946, so it seems plausible to me that it perhaps was a sneak preview. As I've said, this is conjecture and based only on what I've found so far. I'll continue looking and see if I can find anything else.

Here's the link: http://picturethis.museumca.org/pictures/song-south-protest
 

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
I'd love to hear the opinions of the Black community on this forum. Most of the replies so far seem to be from people who aren’t Black based on previous comments they've made and are trying to pretend to know what the Black community would be offended by.

Thank you. I casually mentioned something like this in another thread but didn't want to rock the boat too much, but as a black man (who, like others, doesn't want to speak for an entire community), it's obvious that many of the replies to the whole PotF conversion aren't apart of the community. I just have a few brief thoughts:
  • In my opinion, what is and is not offensive from a historical perspective is never about what actually happened, but how the actions are now perceived. I've seen people argue until they're blue in the face on these forums defending Song of the South, a movie not even Disney is proud of. And for what? We can discuss whether or not the movie is racist until the cows come home, but even the discussion alone warrants wondering whether or not Splash should abandon the IP altogether.

  • There's an overwhelming lack of empathy on these forums that really reflects 1) Disney's main demographic (read between the lines there), and 2) this demographic's response, as a whole, to societies' current movement to address offensive monuments to black cultures. Unless you are a member of a non-white community, I do not think you have a say in what is or is not offensive to non-white communities. Understand that you do not need to be a part of every conversation, and sometimes it is best to just sit back and listen.

  • Now, on the topic of Splash, while I'm always open to new experiences, I am conflicted with the idea of altering the attraction. On one hand, we should be able to address problematic storylines and source materials without people resulting to false equivalencies and strawman arguments, such as "WELL, WHAT ABOUT FRONTIERLAND AND IT'S PORTRAYAL OF INDIANS?" Let's face it. You don't care about the problematic inspiration or representation in Frontierland. You don't care about Indians and their portrayals. Your only objective is to minimize the concern members of the black community have with Splash and Song of the South because you'd rather defend a massive hunk of concrete, water, and fiberglass instead of learning to listen to the pain of other people that society has taught you is the enemy. And, frankly, by even acknowledging the issues in other parts of the park, you're inadvertently admitting that Splash and/or Song of the South is indeed problematic. That's exactly one reason why a false equivalency is a logical fallacy.

  • However, on the other hand, fixing Splash will not fix the issue of racial injustice. Editing episodes of The Office and Golden Girls will not fix the issue of racial injustice. Renaming "master bedrooms" will not fix the issue of racial injustice. This is not an instance of political correctness going too far; rather, this is another instance where the cultural majority (again, read between the lines), tries to appease the outspoken voices of the wronged minority by awarding symbolic victories. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I apologize for the lengthy post, but wanted to share my two cents, for what they're worth.
 
Last edited:

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Thank you. I casually mentioned something like this in another thread but didn't want to rock the boat too much, but as a black man (who, like others, doesn't want to speak for an entire community), it's obvious that many of the replies to the whole PotF conversion aren't apart of the community. I just have a few brief thoughts:
  • In my opinion, what is and is not offensive from a historical perspective is never about what actually happened, but how the actions are now perceived. I've seen people argue until they're blue in the face on these forms defending Song of the South and, a movie not even Disney is proud of. And for what? We can discuss whether or not the movie is racist until the cows come home, but even the discussion alone warrants wondering whether or not Splash should abandon the IP altogether (which it hasn't.)

  • There's an overwhelming lack of empathy on these forums that really reflect 1) Disney's main demographic (read between the lines there), and 2) this demographic's response, as a whole, to societies' current movement to address offensive monuments to black cultures. Unless you are a member of a non-white community, I do not think you have a say in what is or is not offensive to non-white communities.

  • Now, on the topic of Splash, while I'm always open to new experiences, I am conflicted with the idea of altering the attraction. On one hand, we should be able to address problematic storylines and source materials without people resulting to false equivalencies and strawman arguments, such as "WELL, WHAT ABOUT FRONTIERLAND AND IT'S PORTRAYAL OF INDIANS?" Let's face it. You don't care about the problematic inspiration or representation in Frontierland. You don't care about Indians and their portrayals. Your only objective is to minimize the concern members of the black community have with Splash and Song of the South because you'd rather defend a massive hunk of concrete, water, and fiberglass instead of learning to listen to the pain of other people that society has taught you is the enemy. And, frankly, by even acknowledging the issues in other parts of the park, you're inadvertently admitting that Splash and/or Song of the South is indeed problematic. That's exactly one reason why a false equivalency is a logical fallacy.

  • However, on the other hand, fixing Splash will not fix the issue of racial injustice. Editing episodes of The Office and Golden Girls will not fix the issue of racial injustice. Renaming "master bedrooms" will not fix the issue of racial injustice. This is not an instance of political correctness going too far; rather, this is another instance where the cultural majority (again, read between the lines), tries to appease the outspoken voices of the wronged minority by awarding symbolic victories. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I apologize for the lengthy post, but wanted to share my two cents, for what they're worth.

Speak on it.👏🏾
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
Hmm. I did find a zoom of the protest photo that I've linked to below from the Oakland Museum's website, as this photo came from Oakland, CA (for whatever reason it won't allow me to attach the zoomed image directly into the post). According to their site, the picture was taken on April 2, 1947. For SOTS, that would still make sense: film distribution wasn't necessarily the same as it is today, in that a film did not open wide everywhere on the same day as it is now and there was often a delay before different parts of the country received movies. Reportedly Jungle Flight was finished in 1946, so it seems plausible to me that it perhaps was a sneak preview. As I've said, this is conjecture and based only on what I've found so far. I'll continue looking and see if I can find anything else.

Here's the link: http://picturethis.museumca.org/pictures/song-south-protest
True, odds are these people are protesting SOTS even though the male chauvinism was pretty ramped in that time period. However, they are same kind of nuts that protested Harry Potter for being demonic years later. Notice how you don't see Universal retheming Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey because some church groups freak out about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom