Jungle Cruise Update

[Californian Elitist]

The overall point he is making is that bad representation can be worse than no representation.

No one wants to see themselves or whatever group(s) they belong to represented as the worst, most obnoxious, most stereotypical version possible. It may be more 'palatable' to some if they are presented in that way, and its simplified and less complicated, but it can leave unfortunate implications and messages behind. Especially if the group being depicted doesn't get represented very much in a given context, period.

Absolutely. Riding past the black animatronics in Jungle Cruise didn’t inspire me as a black person, nor make me proud to be black. I don’t mind their presence but I’m not going to miss them either. They can go if need be. Don’t care if they stay either.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I take it you haven't been on the Frozen ride at Epcot, then?

I have, and I think I get what you're going for, but at the same time I think you understand that, in this context, it's not quite the same conversation, is it?

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

The overall point he is making is that bad representation can be worse than no representation.

No one wants to see themselves or whatever group(s) they belong to represented as the worst, most obnoxious, most stereotypical version possible. It may be more 'palatable' to some if they are presented in that way, and its simplified and less complicated, but it can leave unfortunate implications and messages behind. Especially if the group being depicted doesn't get represented very much in a given context, period.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. In the context of the ride, you are in THE MIDDLE OF THE JUNGLE in the 20's or 30's where there would be many native tribes. he wanted a tribe to pose as a threat for a part of the ride. In that CONTEXT he is not saying they are savages because of their race. he is not even saying they are savages. they are just a native tribe the boat comes across. how would you want him to show the tribes?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Maybe they should replace the natives with the cast of Gilligan's Island. It would make me proud.

 

[TP2000]

I have, and I think I get what you're going for, but at the same time I think you understand that, in this context, it's not quite the same conversation, is it?

I don't think it's that different. I had to think hard about where African people show up in the Jungle Cruise. And if a longtime Disneyland fan has to sit down and think about it because it's not very memorable, that tells you it's not the glaring problem a Diversity Committee might think it is.

I came up with three different depictions of African peoples in Anaheim's Jungle Cruise (I say that, because I remember the Orlando version of Trader Sam looking sort of... Cambodian?)

1. The Dancing Natives, with a few extras weaving baskets or doing some handicrafts off to the side.
2. The Attacking Natives, with their blow darts when we invade their territory.
3. Trader Sam. A man so nice they named a hotel bar after him!

Did I miss any? I don't think I did. I think the only "negative" (their word) depiction there could be the fact that the natives with the blow darts attack us with their darts when we invade their territory. Now, is that action on their part "negative" and meant to demean them as a people? Or is it merely a plot device to add some excitement and drama into a slow-moving boat ride? I'm of the opinion it's the latter, and it wasn't meant to demean African peoples but rather a plot twist to spice up a slow-moving boat ride.

Does removing the blow dart natives and replacing them with white people, or more chimps and elephants, or more bamboo, improve the ride? The jury is still out, since this new version of the ride only exists in a press release with very nicely Photoshopped corporate head shots of our favorite executives (there should be trading cards!).

But is the depiction of a tribe that uses blow darts, which is/was a thing that native tribes actually used, "negative"? And so the depiction of African peoples must be erased entirely from the ride? And we pretend as though the entire African continent is populated only by animals, and doesn't have 1.2 Billion people with unique cultures?

Why not just turn this into a slow-moving boat ride about plants and flowers, and just get it over with?

 

[Kram Sacul]

“What’s racist about the Jungle Cruise?”

“It has black peoples in it.”

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Did I miss any? I don't think I did. I think the only "negative" (their word) depiction there could be the fact that the natives with the blow darts attack us with their darts when we invade their territory. Now, is that action on their part "negative" and meant to demean them as a people? Or is it merely a plot device to add some excitement and drama into a slow-moving boat ride? I'm of the opinion it's the latter, and it wasn't meant to demean African peoples but rather a plot twist to spice up a slow-moving boat ride.

Does removing the blow dart natives and replacing them with white people, or more chimps and elephants, or more bamboo, improve the ride? The jury is still out, since this new version of the ride only exists in a press release with very nicely Photoshopped corporate head shots of our favorite executives (there should be trading cards!).

But is the depiction of a tribe that uses blow darts, which is/was a thing that native tribes actually used, "negative"? And so the depiction of African peoples must be erased entirely from the ride? And we pretend as though the entire African continent is populated only by animals, and doesn't have 1.2 Billion people with unique cultures?

Why not just turn this into a slow-moving boat ride about plants and flowers, and just get it over with?

THANK YOU!! THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!! Of course you put it much more eloquent than I do with my bluntness. But this was my point.

 

[Sailor310]

Where are the Asian/Pacific Islanders on the pole? Is they second guy up black? It's hard to tell.

I agree POC could use some black pirates or black townspeople. However, remember the first scene? She yells, "Carlos(?), don't be cheeken," with a thick spanish accent. The pirates did do alot of raiding along the coasts of central America.

 

[Miru]

There! FTFY.

But still.

Anyways, the reason these changes are so disliked is because they’re happening behind our backs without fans giving the chance to say goodbye to the originals.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I don't think it's that different. I had to think hard about where African people show up in the Jungle Cruise. And if a longtime Disneyland fan has to sit down and think about it because it's not very memorable, that tells you it's not the glaring problem a Diversity Committee might think it is.

I came up with three different depictions of African peoples in Anaheim's Jungle Cruise (I say that, because I remember the Orlando version of Trader Sam looking sort of... Cambodian?)

1. The Dancing Natives, with a few extras weaving baskets or doing some handicrafts off to the side.
2. The Attacking Natives, with their blow darts when we invade their territory.
3. Trader Sam. A man so nice they named a hotel bar after him!

Did I miss any? I don't think I did. I think the only "negative" (their word) depiction there could be the fact that the natives with the blow darts attack us with their darts when we invade their territory. Now, is that action on their part "negative" and meant to demean them as a people? Or is it merely a plot device to add some excitement and drama into a slow-moving boat ride? I'm of the opinion it's the latter, and it wasn't meant to demean African peoples but rather a plot twist to spice up a slow-moving boat ride.

Does removing the blow dart natives and replacing them with white people, or more chimps and elephants, or more bamboo, improve the ride? The jury is still out, since this new version of the ride only exists in a press release with very nicely Photoshopped corporate head shots of our favorite executives (there should be trading cards!).

But is the depiction of a tribe that uses blow darts, which is/was a thing that native tribes actually used, "negative"? And so the depiction of African peoples must be erased entirely from the ride? And we pretend as though the entire African continent is populated only by animals, and doesn't have 1.2 Billion people with unique cultures?

Why not just turn this into a slow-moving boat ride about plants and flowers, and just get it over with?

It is the way they are depicted.

There is a long history of depicting Africans, in film, media, etc. as, at best "the uncivilized other", if not outright caricatured savages. It is not what they are doing, necessarily. It is the way it is presented, in which "they" are implied to be uncivilized. Lesser. Other. Obviously unsophisticated with their "primitive" weapons. Caricatured. And, naturally, one of the only examples of African American representation in the park attractions.

Adventureland in general is very much depicted through a colonizers lens. Not necessarily an American colonizer's lens, but definitely through the lens of an Imperialist country. In that context, it becomes easy to read Jungle Cruise as something of a tour done by the conquering Imperial nation that has "civilized" the river, and the natives being but one obstacle to impede that. They are the only non-animal obstacle on the Jungle Cruise, and they are depicted in a way that is very much caricatured. Unfortunate Implications.

The film on which Jungle Cruise was loosely inspired, The African Queen, likewise takes place in colonized Africa in which the villagers are, at best, an obstacle to the colonizing Europeans.

Jungle Cruise, while far from the worst depiction in any media of such a trope, is not exactly flattering to the villagers either.

And lest this be misconstrued, I'm not calling for them to torch Adventureland or Jungle Cruise. Far from it. But it's not exactly hard to read Jungle Cruise that way.

Fortunately, there's nothing that needs to be done with the actual scene other than a minor redesign of the characters. Nothing more, nothing less, and the gags still work as intended. Particularly since, as you said, it is only a handful of figures in the attraction, none of which were exactly state of the art or particularly iconic as individual characters, save Trader Sam, who will still be there but will just look a bit different, presumably. Everyone wins. It's not as if AA figures have never been redesigned before.

And it's still not quite the same as Frozen. Is it respectful to put a Disney princess film in a pavilion that is not actually the same setting as the film? Not particularly. But there is also not hundreds of years worth of demeaning depictions of Norwegians in media either. That's the difference.

But still.

Anyways, the reason these changes are so disliked is because they’re happening behind our backs without fans giving the chance to say goodbye to the originals.

We don't yet know for sure that Splash will not allow fans a last ride. It's been open in Florida since MK reopened.

Their Jungle Cruise is still open too, for the time being.

Anyway, I don't feel like this is going to be that sustantive of a change. It's hardly the first time Jungle Cruise has been updated. If the basic experience of going along the river with your skipper, bad jokes, seeing animals, and things going wrong remains, what is truly being lost? A handful of AA's? Maybe one of which has a face that is iconic in any way?

 

[SuddenStorm]

I think we can all agree that this new and improved Jungle Cruise should include an added course on comedic timing for these skippers that are held in such high regard.

I'd honestly wager that low quality skippers that have been prevalent as of late were doing far more damage to the ride's reputation among guests then Trader Sam was.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

I

It is the way they are depicted.

There is a long history of depicting Africans, in film, media, etc. as, at best "the uncivilized other", if not outright caricatured savages. It is not what they are doing, necessarily. It is the way it is presented, in which "they" are implied to be uncivilized. Lesser. Other. Obviously unsophisticated with their "primitive" weapons. Caricatured. And, naturally, one of the only examples of African American representation in the park attractions.

Adventureland in general is very much depicted through a colonizers lens. Not necessarily an American colonizer's lens, but definitely through the lens of an Imperialist country. In that context, it becomes easy to read Jungle Cruise as something of a tour done by the conquering Imperial nation that has "civilized" the river, and the natives being but one obstacle to impede that. They are the only non-animal obstacle on the Jungle Cruise, and they are depicted in a way that is very much caricatured. Unfortunate Implications.

The film on which Jungle Cruise was loosely inspired, The African Queen, likewise takes place in colonized Africa in which the villagers are, at best, an obstacle to the colonizing Europeans.

Jungle Cruise, while far from the worst depiction in any media of such a trope, is not exactly flattering to the villagers either.

And lest this be misconstrued, I'm not calling for them to torch Adventureland or Jungle Cruise. Far from it. But it's not exactly hard to read Jungle Cruise that way.

Fortunately, there's nothing that needs to be done with the actual scene other than a minor redesign of the characters. Nothing more, nothing less, and the gags still work as intended. Particularly since, as you said, it is only a handful of figures in the attraction, none of which were exactly state of the art or particularly iconic as individual characters, save Trader Sam, who will still be there but will just look a bit different, presumably. Everyone wins. It's not as if AA figures have never been redesigned before.

And it's still not quite the same as Frozen. Is it respectful to put a Disney princess film in a pavilion that is not actually the same setting as the film? Not particularly. But there is also not hundreds of years worth of demeaning depictions of Norwegians in media either. That's the difference.



We don't yet know for sure that Splash will not allow fans a last ride. It's been open in Florida since MK reopened.

Their Jungle Cruise is still open too, for the time being.

Anyway, I don't feel like this is going to be that sustantive of a change. It's hardly the first time Jungle Cruise has been updated. If the basic experience of going along the river with your skipper, bad jokes, seeing animals, and things going wrong remains, what is truly being lost? A handful of AA's? Maybe one of which has a face that is iconic in any way?

In what way are they depicted are they not historically accurate? They did use blow darts. they did live in huts. how is the way they depicted treating them as uncivilized?

 

[TP2000]

It is the way they are depicted.

There is a long history of depicting Africans, in film, media, etc. as, at best "the uncivilized other", if not outright caricatured savages. It is not what they are doing, necessarily. It is the way it is presented, in which "they" are implied to be uncivilized. Lesser. Other. Obviously unsophisticated with their "primitive" weapons. Caricatured. And, naturally, one of the only examples of African American representation in the park attractions.

I'm sure you meant to say Black people, or just Africans. The Black people depicted in the Jungle Cruise aren't "African American", they are simply African.

But honestly, if you were going to make an exciting amusement park experience out of a slow-moving boat ride, would you do it with Africans dancing the Watusi in Africa, or would you do it with a representation of James the IT Guy from the office?

I think it was wise of WDI to use representations of real Africans for their jungle boat ride through Africa. No offense to James the IT Guy, obviously. He does great work.

Adventureland in general is very much depicted through a colonizers lens. Not necessarily an American colonizer's lens, but definitely through the lens of an Imperialist country. In that context, it becomes easy to read Jungle Cruise as something of a tour done by the conquering Imperial nation that has "civilized" the river, and the natives being but one obstacle to impede that. They are the only non-animal obstacle on the Jungle Cruise, and they are depicted in a way that is very much caricatured. Unfortunate Implications.

The film on which Jungle Cruise was loosely inspired, The African Queen, likewise takes place in colonized Africa in which the villagers are, at best, an obstacle to the colonizing Europeans.

No offense to you personally, but all that use of the word "colonizer" makes my eyes glaze over. It's so boring. I get it, it's the reality of the planet earth for the last 2,000 years. Various countries/cultures colonized other countries/cultures. And any representation of the African continent placed anywhere within the last 400 years is going to include colonies and colonizers.

But once you start talking about that stuff in an amusement park, it just gets... boring. This is not why people buy tickets to amusement parks for; to be lectured at about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago.

Jungle Cruise, while far from the worst depiction in any media of such a trope, is not exactly flattering to the villagers either.

And lest this be misconstrued, I'm not calling for them to torch Adventureland or Jungle Cruise. Far from it. But it's not exactly hard to read Jungle Cruise that way.

I'm not convinced. I never once thought of the Jungle Cruise as mean-spirited or disrespectful. No more than I thought the representations of white people or Indians in Frontierland as disrespectful, or of the fictitious storyline of white people versus magicians and dragons in Fantasyland as disrespectful.

It's just silly entertainment in an amusement park. It's not someone's doctoral thesis on Warfare In Sub-Saharan Cultures.

Anyway, I don't feel like this is going to be that substantive of a change. It's hardly the first time Jungle Cruise has been updated. If the basic experience of going along the river with your skipper, bad jokes, seeing animals, and things going wrong remains, what is truly being lost? A handful of AA's? Maybe one of which has a face that is iconic in any way?

I agree. I guess what rubs me the wrong way was how Disney put out a press release calling its own historical work "negative". Talk about throwing Marc Davis and Walt Disney and a hundred other Imagineers under the bus!

That was poor form on Disney's part. Really quite tacky and hurtful, if you ask me. Especially because most of the Imagineers who did that work out of pure love are now dead, and can't respond to that criticism.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

But is the depiction of a tribe that uses blow darts, which is/was a thing that native tribes actually used, "negative"? And so the depiction of African peoples must be erased entirely from the ride? And we pretend as though the entire African continent is populated only by animals, and doesn't have 1.2 Billion people with unique cultures?

I visited Peru about 10 years ago. Beautiful country, rugged, stark constrasts...

The people are fantastic (I can't say too much about their food as overall I found it kind of meh).

We spent 4 days in the Amazon seeing all the bugs, plants, animals etc... saw dolphins, 7ft diameter lily pads, pirhana fishing.... monkeys... and of course visited a local tribe (because that's what tourists do right?). Upon arrival they showed us the art of the blow dart gun and explained how they hunt with it... the 3-4 men then spent turns trying to hit a target that was a good 20ft above the ground and 30 ft away. Two guys were hit and miss, one guy was a hot shot. The 'chief' came around and wanted a crack at it, he was able to hit dead center 4 times in a row. I took a crack at it and was able to hit the target to the applause of everyone there. The rest of my family failed miserably.

After that little show and a tour, it was time for lunch, we were the only people there but they prepared the usual fare for the tourists. At lunch they said they had beer for sale. The 'chief' sat down and joined us for lunch. I offered him if I bought a few rounds would he join and drop the tourist charade... he said sure thing. We proceeded to have a great long chat about his life and what he and his whole family does. We cracked several beers and he got his cell phone out to show me photos of his real home about 2 miles up river. He said that no one hunts with the blow dart any more and made fun of his sons for not being very good it. He said the last time he hunted for food was with his grandfather when he was a boy. His grandfather only ate what he hunted until the day he died. The chief said his father left the village early in his life to work at a mine somewhere up north and made a fair amount of money to support the family. He says his children only spend weeks when off school in the jungle and live in Iquitos the rest of the time and the older ones have jobs in town. He said the village is for tourists but he hopes it carries on the traditions of his grandfather. He told us all sorts of stories from his grandfather and says all his knowledge of the forest came from him. He said none of his sons take an interest in the old ways as they are 'disconnected' from the forest. He said others in the tribe will continue showing the old ways and he teaches as much as he can to them. I distinctly remember a sadness about his children not wanting to live in the jungle and he wanted to tell us as much as he could about the forest...

I was quite enamored with the blow dart gun and of course when it was near time to leave, it was time to buy souvenirs. I immediately made it a goal to buy a full size blow dart gun and somehow get it home... needless to say, we wrapped it up inside a PVC pipe and a lot of tape and we able to carry it home all the way to LAX. I proudly display it above my office and remember the hours I spent with the chief.

SO, all this being said... is showing a 'native' using a blowdart gun... or a spear... or ANY sort of cultural weapon racist??? Is it any different than showing a knight with a broadsword or a bowman of European descent? Why can't we show people of ANY culture in any context without it being labelled racist?

Eh, I've babbled... but I just can't stand people who throw racism all over the place and then pat themselves on the back for doing so. A bunch of virtue signaling freaks... and now it's a profession according to Disney!

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Jury's out. All the fake news is reporting how problematic and insensitive the ride is and how people have just been clamoring for years for Disney to change it. How accurate!

 

[PiratesMansion]

I think we can all agree that this new and improved Jungle Cruise should include an added course on comedic timing for these skippers that are held in such high regard.

I'd honestly wager that low quality skippers that have been prevalent as of late were doing far more damage to the ride's reputation among guests then Trader Sam was.

I can't remember the last time I had a good, memorable skipper. It's been YEARS. Teach them how to do it well, and let them improvise!

I'm sure you meant to say Black people, or just Africans. The Black people depicted in the Jungle Cruise aren't "African American", they are simply African.

But honestly, if you were going to make an exciting amusement park experience out of a slow-moving boat ride, would you do it with Africans dancing the Watusi in Africa, or would you do it with a representation of James the IT Guy from the office?

I think it was wise of WDI to use representations of real Africans for their jungle boat ride through Africa. No offense to James the IT Guy, obviously. He does great work.



No offense to you personally, but all that use of the word "colonizer" makes my eyes glaze over. It's so boring. I get it, it's the reality of the planet earth for the last 2,000 years. Various countries/cultures colonized other countries/cultures. And any representation of the African continent placed anywhere within the last 400 years is going to include colonies and colonizers.

But once you start talking about that stuff in an amusement park, it just gets... boring. This is not why people buy tickets to amusement parks for; to be lectured at about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago.



I'm not convinced. I never once thought of the Jungle Cruise as mean-spirited or disrespectful. No more than I thought the representations of white people or Indians in Frontierland as disrespectful, or of the fictitious storyline of white people versus magicians and dragons in Fantasyland as disrespectful.

It's just silly entertainment in an amusement park. It's not someone's doctoral thesis on Sub-Saharan Cultures.



I agree. I guess what rubs me the wrong way was how Disney put out a press release calling its own historical work "negative". Talk about throwing Marc Davis and Walt Disney and a hundred other Imagineers under the bus!

That was poor form on Disney's part. Really quite tacky and hurtful, if you ask me. Especially because most of the Imagineers who did that work out of pure love are now dead, and can't respond to that criticism.

So are you saying that all Real Africans are just like the people from the Jungle Cruise?
But as I said, respresentation matters. They may be Africans in story, but if you are an African American visiting the park, you don't see that many people/characters/animatronics etc. that look like you. If the ones you do see are made to look like buffoons, is that good?

Representation matters.

So when we talk about the great history of America that's represented in Disneyland that's all well and good, but when it's about hundreds of years of colonialization and the effects of that your eyes glaze over? Hmm...

We're seeing these changes BECAUSE images are powerful and carry messages. And, as always, just because YOU think they are fine does not necessarily mean that everyone has felt that way. The people depicted on the Jungle Cruise don't exactly represent you. Nor did the Indians. People who are/were represented by them should have a little more weight in those conversations as a result.

Again, this is not to say that this was all done in the 50s with bad intentions. But the thing about history, society, and viewpoints is that they change over time. Things that once weren't given a second thought get re-examined. That ultimately can and does include silly entertainment at amusement parks.

 

[TP2000]

SO, all this being said... is showing a 'native' using a blowdart gun... or a spear... or ANY sort of cultural weapon racist??? Is it any different than showing a knight with a broadsword or a bowman of European descent? Why can't we show people of ANY culture in any context without it being labelled racist?

Oh, my gosh! What a perfect analogy! And I couldn't agree with you more.

If showing natives using blowdarts is "negative" (their word), than how about all the imagery in Fantasyland showing swords and shields and medieval weaponry???

Is this also now "negative" and subject to a thorough review by the Diversity & Inclusion Committee???

And if showing culturally specific weaponry is "racist", or even just merely "negative", how about the famous ending of Fantasmic! where Mickey kills the dragon by using his medieval European sword? Is Mickey guilty of cultural appropriation and "negative" imagery here? Should Mickey's medieval European costume and sword be replaced with... Tidings of Good Wishes?

Eh, I've babbled... but I just can't stand people who throw racism all over the place and then pat themselves on the back for doing so. A bunch of virtue signaling freaks... and now it's a profession according to Disney!

You didn't babble. And even if you did, babbling has been what Internet message boards have been about for the past 25 years.

You merely exposed the slippery slope of labeling everything "RACIST!" when it was anything but racism.

It defeats the importance of the word racism, and renders it meaningless. Now WDI has even looped in the word "negative" to mean any representation of any culture that isn't white bread Americana. And that's even more dangerous!

 

[TP2000]

So are you saying that all Real Africans are just like the people from the Jungle Cruise?

No more so than today's 22 year old joke-cracking Skipper from Brea (Go Wildcats!) is like a real jungle explorer circa 1934.

That's just it. It's an amusement park ride. None of it is actually real.

Sorry if I just ruined the blow dart scene for you. You didn't actually need to duck down in the boat for that part.

 

[mickEblu]

So now that it appears that they are showing some restraint by not adding any major movie tie ins to Jungle Cruise, can we see them removing the Depps out POTC? Or at the very least change the audio back?

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

So now that it appears that they are showing some restraint by not adding any major movie tie ins to Jungle Cruise, can we see them removing the Depps out POTC? Or at the very least change the audio back?

I don't believe that.