Disney Hosting Immigrants' Citizenship Ceremony

[AEfx]

WDWGuide: how does it not have bearing on the discussion?
It is in his first post not: "which centered on the appropriateness of jet overflights for non-military events" also it's funny you find a definition for castle that suits your purpose. They were invented for one purpose only.

/sigh

You cannot see the difference between Cinderella Castle and the types of Castles you are talking about?

As I have said (now for the fourth time, I believe) many objects are repurposed and then can take on an iconography of their own. Cinderella Castle has as much to do with the type of Castles you are talking about as nothing at all.

The INTENT OF INVENTION of Jet Fighters is ONE PART of it. That's why making other surface comparisons is irrelevant. That is ONE FACTOR as to why I find it inappropriate, when combined with all the other factors discussed.

Cinderella Castle is known world-wide as a symbol of innocence, childhood, hope, and dreams.

Some people here believe that Jet Fighters represent "freedom", and believe that fits with the castle. I think they are necessary evils, not to be celebrated, and find it absolutely objectionable. It is all of the factors at work here, not one here and one there. I was asked to defend each of these reasons throughout this thread, and if you truly read what I have to say during the portions of this discussion where I was strenuously arguing about the INVENTION portion was because someone was putting themselves in the position of representing the Walt Disney Company trying to tell me that I was wrong in calling it a "war machine", which it is. The Walt Disney Company representative seemed very interested in defining the Walt Disney Company's position on that in particular.

Basically, you are trying to make me out to be a hypocrite, which is fine - it's not true, but it's fine. I cannot help my initial reaction at hearing those two iconographic images combined, and no amount of arguing about the origin of Castles is going to change how disturbing I find those images. It's the MODERN part that is the problem as well. Castles are what, a thousand years old? Jet Fighters aren't, and represent something very different - as you'll see me say below, muskets are more appropriate for this type of situation if one insists on using violent imagery.

I understand that to some people the iconography of Jet Fighters are inspirational. They are not to me. But I don't know many people that look at Cinderella Castle as having the iconographic qualities of war itself, even though the castle structure, many centuries ago, had it's origins in protecting people from cannon balls and arrows, which is why I still maintain that the origins of castles are irrelevant to this discussion and the myriad of factors that go into the (what I find) disturbing imagery created by that press release.

You focused solely on the list (done partially tongue in cheek, see the Star Wars entry) and ignored the rest of my post.

I'm sorry, but the reason I did not reply to the rest of your posting is because it stands on it's own. I'm not going to sit here and debate the meaning of words that we obviously think mean different things - the words you highlight were written for a much different time, and I just disagree as to their relevance to Jet Fighters. Also, those lines you SPECIFICALLY quoted are often omitted from citizenship ceremonies due to religious reasons (many religions don't find it appropriate), so they may not even be used here. I just think it's a leap to go from those few words and their intention and the crass showing of modern industrial military might that Jet Fighters are.

Regardless of any of that, though, then fine - if it's so military centric put it on a military base, surround it with all kinds of aircraft carriers, machine guns, whatever. Just don't put it in front of the castle. That's the point here - the combination of all these things, in front of Cinderella Castle.

If you want to shoot off muskets I'd find it more appropriate if they are using the text as the reasoning (though I still believe items of realistic, real-world violence at all don't belong at the Castle, but it would be more contextual than Jet Fighters). Trying to tie those optional words ("So help me God" is also optional) into Jet Fighters is a huge leap in my mind. And in fact, if you really want to go read about the Oath, you'll find that the government tried to change it a few years ago to change this "pick up arms" stuff to lanugage that broke it down to "military, noncombat, or civillian service", but too many people complained the changes were too cosmetic and it was abandoned and assumed most people knew that they weren't actually all going to be asked to pick up arms. Much of the oath is based on writings that are 500 years old (from England); I just don't see the relevance from there to modern industrial war machines. But that's not something that we will solve here either.

I do agree with you that Military and Violence is a huge part of our national culture, something that I feel is sad, not something to be celebrated. Hence my participation here in thinking that celebrating a necessary evil isn't appropriate for Cinderella Castle.

AEfx

 

[WDWGuide]

WDWGuide: how does it not have bearing on the discussion?
It is in his first post not: "which centered on the appropriateness of jet overflights for non-military events" also it's funny you find a definition for castle that suits your purpose. They were invented for one purpose only.

That being said, I totally agree with your "addiction" views, but I guess that really has no bearing.:lol:

The argument of what a castle was invented for is totally irrelevant. Cinderella Castle is a permanent and well-known fixture of the Magic Kingdom - if anyone disagrees with it they don't have to go there.

Further, like I said, there are many types of castles, and their purpose changed dramatically between the 9th and 19th centuries. I went to school in one. I have visited many. Cinderella Castle was inspired by royal chateaus (some of which were, some of which weren't fortified) and is missing virtually all elements for military defense. The parts that are recreated (moat, high walls, access by "bridge") are incomplete or not functional, even in a "plausible impossible" type of way. It's a mock or revival-style castle, such as would have been built during the 18th or 19th century. Military jets are real, current machines used in part for destroying infrastructure and killing people - while the image of the juxtaposition of the two doesn't really bother me like another poster on this thread, I do agree it is a stark contrast. After all, I don't recall any military jets playing a prominent role in any Grimm-inspired Disney animated feature.

It's not a matter of finding a definition that suits my purpose. Much like corn/maize was originally domesticated as a food staple only and has since evolved into a source for biofuels, castles were originally in almost all cases military structures, but the invention of gunpowder rendered that purpose pretty much useless and they evolved into mostly residential buildings. That's a fact.

In any case, my personal argument centered on the wastefulness of such events and the fact that military appropriations are utilized for such purposes for non-military events. Being a fiscal conservative, this strikes me as hypocritical and unpatriotic. It may be a drop in a bucket in the big picture, but lots of drops do add up over time. And those drops would buy a whole lot of body armor and veteran care.

 

[RougeDDD]

/sigh



Basically, you are trying to make me out to be a hypocrite, which is fine - it's not true, but it's fine.

AEfx

I am very sorry if you feel this way, that was no way my intent and I apologize. Your image of the castle is a symbol of innocence, childhood, hope, and dreams. So when you say the two don't go together you are completely right.
Every response you gave is exactly what you believe and far from being hypocritical.

I just have a completely different image of a castle so I just find it ironic when taken in the context of my beliefs.

Again my initial post was a joke/sarcasm. On every other post I was just defending my view on castles.

WDWGuide:
I have no problem with it in MK never said that.
Again I agree with your personal argument and the comment 'it has no bearing' was a joke.

 

[jmvd20]

Are they utilizing these products in the ceremony? If not, this doesn't have any bearing to the discussion, which centered on the appropriateness of jet overflights for non-military events, not whether or not any reference to potentially lethal objects should be barred from Walt Disney World.

Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread...

Yes, weapons of war have a bearing on the discussion, it centers around whether or not weapons of war are appropriate at WDW. Thus that makes my comments perfectly relevant to the discussion.

If a jet is a weapon of war and should not be seen alongside the castle then how is it appropriate for a gun, or sword to be seen along with the castle?

 

[Sleepy01]

Wow - a 5 day thread drift...

Isn't about time ReDisniey E-Dew and AEfx got the ruler out and decided this once and for all? :lookaroun

 

[MonkeyHeadCup]

I think this discussion is getting a little heated - can we tone it down a little and talk about something relevant and important, like the overly violent nature of Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters? For a family institution to promote the indescriminate "blasting" of creatures, fictional or not, simply should not be tolerated. Not to mention the subtle message to impressionable children to hate and fear the different and ugly to the point of advocating violence towards them - it's shamefull, really...

Don't get me started on the overall celebration of violent rape, theft and debauchery promoted on that horrible Pirate ride...

Or celebration of the Occult and making jokes at the expense of the Dead - c'mon disney, making fun of dead people just isn't funny - am I right?

Southern Racist culture on Splash Mountain - a ride based on a cartoon so offensive, it's not even shown anymore...

Shooting Galleries...
Freakish Talking Bears...
Giant dirty RODENTS....

Disney must be stopped...

 

[WDWGuide]

Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread...

Yes, weapons of war have a bearing on the discussion, it centers around whether or not weapons of war are appropriate at WDW. Thus that makes my comments perfectly relevant to the discussion.

If a jet is a weapon of war and should not be seen alongside the castle then how is it appropriate for a gun, or sword to be seen along with the castle?

My problem is not one of aesthetics (although I don't disagree with that argument, either), it's one of economics and ethics. Your argument misses my personal point entirely, but I will address it anyway by stating that you surely must see the difference in scale and impact between kids with cheap, unrealistic toy rifle replicas and a group of F-15s (or whatever). Comparing the two is truly a stretch of the imagination. Now, if they started selling authentic replicas of AK-47s, etc, we might be able to talk, but the difference is still huge.

 

[CBOMB]

As citizens of this Great Country we do not have to respect other peoples opinion. However, we are obligated to let every person have the right to speak their opinion. That's just one of the many reasons why so many come here. Somehow I believe when all of those new Citizens of The United States Of America look up at the fly over by our military men, and women, they will only feel love for this country. For some it will be the single most important day of their life. I hope everyone welcomes our new citizens here, on our day of Independence.

 

[ReDisniey E-Dew]

I have no problem with Jet Fighters being in the world. I do have a problem with them AT the World. That doesn't change their right to be there, or anything else - but I refuse to let anyone get by making snarky comments like I just don't "get it" when I know what a Fighter Jet is designed and used for - war, and entertainment (or as you call it, "inspiration") and for me simply expressing how VERY VERY DISTURBING that I find the thought of that beautiful castle framed with machines that were invented to shoot down other machines in violence. To some people that is comforting, to me that is not.

And yes, if you took military Hummers with cammo and big guns hanging off and stuck those in front of the castle, I would be offended as well. The design of that vehicle has crossed into the consumer market because it HAD OTHER USES. Are the ones in use at WDW outfitted with guns and such? A Fighter Jet has no other use other than to Fight and entertain people at shows. People don't take Fighter Jets as transportation. Fighter Jets don't cure diseases, or have any other purpose but to be used in times of war and attack (prevention or cause).

I can understand why you feel that jets flying above Cinderella's Castle is disturbing. You obviously can understand why others may feel differently. That's just a difference we'll have to agree to disagree on.

However, I do find it interesting that you mention Hummers have other uses, and that is your rationale for them being okay at WDW. I'm not positive, but I don't believe the jets flying over WDW will have any weaponry on them. Considering jets can be used for fighting, patrolling, escorting, and aerial demonstrations, I fail to see any real difference between the significance of unarmed jets and unarmed hummers. However, if you see that as symbolically different, we'll have to agree to disagree once again.

As a side note, I am shocked that as a self-appointed representative of the Walt Disney Company you are continuing to give my opinions such GREAT attention and have time to come back for further rebuttals. I had no idea the Walt Disney Company had such strong feelings about this matter. You claim in other threads you are so busy you can't reply to them so I find it very flattering that you have spent all this time in an attempt to present the official standing of the Walt Disney Company on so many issues.

I truly am flattered...even though you are now making comments about things I never implied or said.

AEfx

You will note that when I spoke on behalf of the official policy at The Walt Disney Company, I stated as such. When I was speaking from personal logic, I did not make any indication that I was speaking on behalf of the company.

Have a great day.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

As I have said (now for the fourth time, I believe) many objects are repurposed and then can take on an iconography of their own.

Isn't this, at bottom, the same point everybody you've been disagreeing with in this thread has been arguing?

For the amount of time this ceremony lasts, the jets involved will have the sole purpose of making everybody in the crowd look up and go "ooooooh" and "aaaaaah." Any military purpose will be discarded, at least for the moment. :shrug:

 

[Eyorefan]

Wow. I was wondering why this thread kept on popping up. Not that a Citizenship Ceremony isn't news, but I was wondering why people were continuing to comment.

I have to say I honestly never thought of a fly over of jets as being out of place at a civic ceremony. I mean, it's symbolic of our nation and it's fight for freedom.

I guess I can see why some would find it disturbing. I live not too far from a National Guard training ground and there have been many times when I have seen military convoys going down the freeway on their way to the field. That I find to be a small disturbing glimpse into what it might be like to live in a war zone where military convoys are just another part of your average day.
I don't know that I could be convinced to see the fly over as wrong, out of place or disturbing. I guess I can kind of see where you are coming from though.:shrug:

 

[AEfx]

You will note that when I spoke on behalf of the official policy at The Walt Disney Company, I stated as such. When I was speaking from personal logic, I did not make any indication that I was speaking on behalf of the company.

Well, this is a fine line you walk, my friend, and you really need to be careful. But since you seem to want to open this can of worms...

You speak with such "authority" for the Walt Disney Company, and you made no transition between making declarative statements on their behalf and your personal opinion. When you continued your replies (once again, I am flattered you bring your attention back to me when you are so...in demand in other threads) to me, you made no such distinction between "We the Walt Disney Company feel..." and "this is my personal opinion".

In short, if you are going to post and declare yourself an official representative of the Walt Disney Company, your responsibilities for what you say on these boards or anywhere you invoke this "authority" of things pertaining to the Walt Disney Company is different. Either you post on their behalf, or you do not - going back in forth from reply to reply in the same thread is not only confusing, but inappropriate, at least in my eyes. If you wish to declare yourself an expert and a representative, and so strenuously work for people to believe (as you full well admit in your other postings) what you have to say, to "create a stir" as you say you wish, then you have a different responsibility than someone who just comes here as a private person to have discussions.

I think it's a cop-out to now say that you were both talking about personal opinion versus the Walt Disney Company's opinion, as you certainly did not make the distinction (and in fact, when questioned, reaffirmed that yes, you do put forth that you represent the Walt Disney Company). But everyone else can judge your participation as they wish, the thread is right here in black and white.

I'm glad to know, though, that you are admitting now the difference between your personal opinion and the official position of the Walt Disney Company. That's why I bothered to give you the replies that you have. You are back to the "hummer" discussion, which I've already fully described. That object has been repurposed to the consumer market, and we aren't talking about hummers with guns and weapons in front of the castle, or even the appearance of such.

If you really read what I have to say, you'd see that the facts of invention are only ONE portion of this. But you keep harping on the same point after what, four posts, and it's clear that you are just stating your OPINION, and since you don't really officially represent the Walt Disney Company in this matter as you tried to put forth, I'll just take your postings with a grain of salt. It's not my duty to convince you, and next time you wish to participate PERSONALLY in a discussion I invite you to not try to invent authority over the topic, as all it does it make it look like you use the situation to serve your personal interests when it's convenient, and that you don't back up what you say when asked to. If you want to tell people you represent the Walt Disney Company and their views, then you carry a responsibility that I don't think you quite grasp. You cannot have it both ways and still be taken seriously.

Now, since you've given me such attention in this thread, how about answering my question in your last thread? You said :

This should take care of any complaints about me being too vague.

And I asked simply why you were concerned about people thinking you vague. You didn't reply to me, but mysteriously appeared in this thread a few hours later and gave me more attention that you have given anyone on these boards in terms of replies. My reason for asking why you care if people think you are vague is valid; if you truly represent what you say you do, then why do you bother to work so hard to impress people (just give them the info, and if they dismiss it their own loss).

You seem to wish people to give you lots of attention and are here trying to convince people of things; I'm not here to prove anything, but it seems you are. You are asking people to give your words more weight than others because of the status you wish us to believe you hold, yet you don't seem to want the responsibility that goes with that.

I hope you have a nice day, too.

AEfx

 

[ReDisniey E-Dew]

Well, this is a fine line you walk, my friend, and you really need to be careful. But since you seem to want to open this can of worms...

No. I never started this discussion, and I was perfectly happy with agreeing to disagree. Appearantly that doesn't satisfy you.

You speak with such "authority" for the Walt Disney Company, and you made no transition between making declarative statements on their behalf and your personal opinion. When you continued your replies (once again, I am flattered you bring your attention back to me when you are so...in demand in other threads) to me, you made no such distinction between "We the Walt Disney Company feel..." and "this is my personal opinion".

Each and every single time I told you what the Walt Disney Company's official policy is in regards to the jets, I stated as such. If you thought that every single answer to you was official policy, then that's just foolish. And to say that I did not make any distinction is just a load of baloney. The people reading these forums are not so unwise that they can't go back and see that I did just that.

In short, if you are going to post and declare yourself an official representative of the Walt Disney Company, your responsibilities for what you say on these boards or anywhere you invoke this "authority" of things pertaining to the Walt Disney Company is different. Either you post on their behalf, or you do not - going back in forth from reply to reply in the same thread is not only confusing, but inappropriate, at least in my eyes. If you wish to declare yourself an expert and a representative, and so strenuously work for people to believe (as you full well admit in your other postings) what you have to say, to "create a stir" as you say you wish, then you have a different responsibility than someone who just comes here as a private person to have discussions.

I have stated in the past that I do not care if people believe what I say or not. When I speak on behalf of the Walt Disney Company, I say so. That's almost never. However, I do find it very silly that you are still complaining when I told you to go verify what I have said with a Disney PR person who can tell you their name and offer to transfer you to their supervisor, who can also give you your name. You don't have to be in the dark as to what the policy is, you can call and ask. For whatever reason, you just continue to find some reason to argue on this thread.

I think it's a cop-out to now say that you were both talking about personal opinion versus the Walt Disney Company's opinion, as you certainly did not make the distinction (and in fact, when questioned, reaffirmed that yes, you do put forth that you represent the Walt Disney Company). But everyone else can judge your participation as they wish, the thread is right here in black and white.

Baloney. And yes, everyone else can judge both of our participation in this thread. Considering the lack of support you've gotten, I think that's telling.

I'm glad to know, though, that you are admitting now the difference between your personal opinion and the official position of the Walt Disney Company. That's why I bothered to give you the replies that you have. You are back to the "hummer" discussion, which I've already fully described. That object has been repurposed to the consumer market, and we aren't talking about hummers with guns and weapons in front of the castle, or even the appearance of such.

I didn't admit anything. And I am not going to discuss the topic any further as I've already said everything there is to say. If you wish to argue the point, you can argue with yourself.

If you really read what I have to say, you'd see that the facts of invention are only ONE portion of this. But you keep harping on the same point after what, four posts, and it's clear that you are just stating your OPINION, and since you don't really officially represent the Walt Disney Company in this matter as you tried to put forth, I'll just take your postings with a grain of salt. It's not my duty to convince you, and next time you wish to participate PERSONALLY in a discussion I invite you to not try to invent authority over the topic, as all it does it make it look like you use the situation to serve your personal interests when it's convenient, and that you don't back up what you say when asked to. If you want to tell people you represent the Walt Disney Company and their views, then you carry a responsibility that I don't think you quite grasp. You cannot have it both ways and still be taken seriously.

I have represented the Walt Disney Company in reference to their official policy. If you did not understand that, I apologize for your misunderstanding. If you think I am being snide, I am. I think the response you have just made is totally ridiculous.

And I asked simply why you were concerned about people thinking you vague. You didn't reply to me, but mysteriously appeared in this thread a few hours later and gave me more attention that you have given anyone on these boards in terms of replies. My reason for asking why you care if people think you are vague is valid; if you truly represent what you say you do, then why do you bother to work so hard to impress people (just give them the info, and if they dismiss it their own loss).

I already replied to you in that specific thread. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had read it.

You seem to wish people to give you lots of attention and are here trying to convince people of things; I'm not here to prove anything, but it seems you are. You are asking people to give your words more weight than others because of the status you wish us to believe you hold, yet you don't seem to want the responsibility that goes with that.

I have said repeatedly that I really don't care. I've said in my very first post that when my statements materialize, that is how people can know I am giving them true information.

I will not be responding to you further in this thread or about this topic. I have said all I need to say, and I do not feel like arguing for the sake of argument. It's not my cup of tea.

Have fun,

 

[AEfx]

Each and every single time I told you what the Walt Disney Company's official policy is in regards to the jets, I stated as such. If you thought that every single answer to you was official policy, then that's just foolish. And to say that I did not make any distinction is just a load of baloney. The people reading these forums are not so unwise that they can't go back and see that I did just that.

No, you didn't. There is a difference between two people disagreeing (as I do just fine with others who feel differently) and you coming in here and speaking for the Walt Disney Company, and then arguing the semantics of the positions without drawing the line between Walt Disney Company views and your own.

You repeatedly said, "We feel..." etc, lumping yourself in.

When you do that, you cannot jump back and forth between "we" and your personal feelings seperated from that in the same posting unless you specify. When you make "We..." statements, and then I reply, when you reply again how am I to assume you are talking for yourself and not "we" again?

I think it's really funny that you'd point out the "lack of support"...you haven't gotten much either, friend, but that's irrelevant. A couple on each side. The rest of the people, agree or disagree, were smart enough to stay out of the discussion. You see, unlike you, I am not here to prove anything, so support or lack thereof of other posters is really non-consequential. I would not have participated nearly as deeply in this thread had you not continually challenged my point of view bathed in Disney-speak, admitting that you think you speak for the Walt Disney Company, and I have now met my goal of getting you to admit that no, you were not talking for the Walt Disney Company when you were making some of the claims you did.

The facts remain that you walked in here, tried to represent the Walt Disney Company, specifically said several times you did, then got carried away with your arguments and forgot where that line was. My apologies for not seeing your edited line that replied to me in that previous thread; if I had seen it, I would have still questioned the answer, as your actions and text of your posts completely fly in the face of it. I think you've revealed a few of your truer colors here though, and hopefully you will think a bit harder before speaking as "We the Walt Disney Company..." again.

I'll go your "have a great day" one better, and tell you to have a MAGICAL day.

AEfx

 

[davidpw97]

So does anyone know what time this event is taking place? We will be at Disney over the 4th and I want to make sure we plan our day according to this event. I can imagine the crowds will be huge!!!

Since someone asked this a few days ago and I couldn't find an answer through all the arguing and disagreeing and the agreeing to disagree that was going on I thought i'd try to answer this question and maybe put a temporary end to the thread drift.
Lee Greenwood is going to be singing "God Bless the USA" at the conclusion of the ceremony and coincidentally he also happens to be performing tonight at the ampitheater in my town and spending the night at the hotel in which I work. I was looking him up online so that in case I meet him I will know something about him and on his website, www.leegreenwood.com, it talks about him singing at WDW on the 4th and it says the ceremony starts at 8AM.

also, I have no problem with the flyover. It would be one thing if they were landing the jets on main street and setting up recruitment stations, but why get all worked up over something that will last a fraction of a second. What seems wrong or trivial to some may mean the world to those participating in the ceremony. I don't know why flyovers have become a tradition for special occasions such as this, but they are a tradition and I don't see it changing anytime soon and I can't really believe the heated debates that have been raging here the last few days, seems like there's much worse things going on in the world to get worked up about.