Dumbo and Peter Pan rides set for removal?

[Californian Elitist]

Huh. And yet the dictionaries haven't caught up. Or at least the hardbound dictionaries I use.

Noun: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

I just never hear any young kids claiming "That's prejudiced!" or "That person is a bigot!". It's always "racism" or "racist", at least when they speak out loud. I just didn't know if college professors are in that camp too, and they now only use the words "racist" or "racism" to describe actions or concepts stemming from prejudice or bigotry, but not necessarily racism.

Or, in the case of Disneyland's Peter Pan dark ride, simply stemming from insensitivity. Not racism, in its accurate description.

Just because you don’t hear something, it doesn’t mean that something is no longer used.

If someone who is not black refers to me as an “N” word, especially with the hard “ER” at the end, they are racist. Referring to me by that term isn’t directly related to the notion that that person considers their race to be superior to mine, yet the act is still racist. That’s just one example.

Neither Dictionary.com, nor your physical copies of dictionaries don’t go into the complex definition of racism, but it is what it is.

“What Makes the Red Man Red” can be interpreted as racist and is considered by many to be so, including Natives. Even if you want to call it “prejudice” or “bigoted,” that doesn’t help matters and still insinuates that the song is problematic.

 

[Brer Panther]

Plus, as I've said before, Disney apparently hates Jessica Rabbit. With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if Roger Rabbit got the axe.

I have to admit, though, the "Visit the La Brea Tar Pits" sign is kind of clever.

 

[CaptinEO]

Plus, as I've said before, Disney apparently hates Jessica Rabbit. With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if Roger Rabbit got the axe.

I have to admit, though, the "Visit the La Brea Tar Pits" sign is kind of clever.

They sell Jessica Rabbit shirts in the parks as of a year or two ago.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Disney gets to decide. Its their property. Not really all that complicated.

I was referencing the world in general, not Disney Parks specifically.

 

[Brer Oswald]

What many people fail to realize is "Racism!" is a complex, multi-faceted concept. It does not solely mean someone of one race hating someone else because they are of a different race or belief that one's race is superior to others'. Those of us who have taken a sociology 101 class within the last 30 or so years would know this.

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on this because I’m not, but the textbook definition of racism falls into a greater category of issues relating to people of different cultures. To be racist is the highest degree. You dislike a particular culture due to a set of preconceived notions. But then there’s cultural ignorance. Yes it’s true, if you are racist, you are willfully being ignorant. But you can be unwillingly ignorant due to lack of knowledge. This can lead you to make several assumptions about a culture, that while not necessarily negative, are just not true.

Peter Pan dances on the fine line between these two concepts, more so than some of the other Disney films that struggle to accurately depict cultures.

As for the term “racist”, I understand that we as a society want to group everything relating to improper cultural relations as “racism”. Quite frankly, it’s easier to say and easier to describe. However, the issue arises in maintaining the same severity of the original word across al of the different cases.

You can have a person that willingly displays hatred towards a culture, and you can have someone who just lacks knowledge of a culture they have not experienced properly. Today, both would be deemed “racist” of relatively equal severity. I’m not sure how we as a society are supposed to come together if we’re antagonizing people that lack knowledge rather than trying to teach them. While I’m sure some people that are antagonized would pick themselves up and try to learn, many will hold onto it, and the blissful ignorance may very well evolve into incessant hatred.

...

Perhaps that was too deep for a conversation about Peter Pan.

 

[Professortango1]

Plus, as I've said before, Disney apparently hates Jessica Rabbit. With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if Roger Rabbit got the axe.

I have to admit, though, the "Visit the La Brea Tar Pits" sign is kind of clever.

I've seen a ton of Jessica merch. Plus, in this day and age, she's a progressive character. She's not bad, she's just drawn that way. Ties directly into shaming a girl for her looks/style and making assumptions about her. In the end, she's a foxy toon who truly does love her dorky guy and is more than just an object in the film. I don't foresee any bucking of Jessica.

Now, I could see Roger getting the boot due to popularity of IP. I LOVE the attraction, but I will admit that the attraction relies on a bit of understanding of the film to know who Roger is. This wasn't a problem when the ride debuted as Roger was almost as big as Mickey Mouse and had shorts appearing before movies as well as entire lands being planned around him.

The fact they didn't use Roger for part of Mickey's Runaway Railway gives me hope.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I've seen a ton of Jessica merch. Plus, in this day and age, she's a progressive character. She's not bad, she's just drawn that way. Ties directly into shaming a girl for her looks/style and making assumptions about her. In the end, she's a foxy toon who truly does love her dorky guy and is more than just an object in the film. I don't foresee any bucking of Jessica.

Now, I could see Roger getting the boot due to popularity of IP. I LOVE the attraction, but I will admit that the attraction relies on a bit of understanding of the film to know who Roger is. This wasn't a problem when the ride debuted as Roger was almost as big as Mickey Mouse and had shorts appearing before movies as well as entire lands being planned around him.

The fact they didn't use Roger for part of Mickey's Runaway Railway gives me hope.

I think Roger is safe. The franchise has carved its own niche that sells well. It’s appreciated by more contemporary fans and classic Disney fans alike. They’d be foolish to give it the axe.

 

[el_super]

Picking up media traction now:

Disney changed how it handles ‘Peter Pan.’ Will the Disneyland ride be next?

The ride shows culturally insensitive depictions of Native Americans.

www.sfgate.com

Interesting that Disney may have privately floated the idea of changing the ride already.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

I just hope, that with whatever happens, they'll actually fill in the empty space where the current scene lies, instead of removing it quietly, without putting anything in its place.

 

[Professortango1]

Picking up media traction now:

Disney changed how it handles ‘Peter Pan.’ Will the Disneyland ride be next?

The ride shows culturally insensitive depictions of Native Americans.

www.sfgate.com

Interesting that Disney may have privately floated the idea of changing the ride already.

If they did change the ride, I imagine they might go with something similar to the new ride being put into Tokyo's Neverland attractions.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

If they did change the ride, I imagine they might go with something similar to the new ride being put into Tokyo's Neverland attractions.

I'm not even sure if that's possible, considering the space constraints within Fantasyland already present. They'd have to remove so much that's already there, it wouldn't be worth it. Plus, the attraction being put into Tokyo isn't anything like the original Fantasyland dark-rides, it's basically Flight of Passage, but Peter Pan themed, from my understanding. It would ruin much of the charm and cohesion of the overall courtyard, and isn't financially feasible. I'd imagine they'll remove the scene, in favor of another vignette, yet to be announced.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Also, from what it sounds like (at least from what I gathered from the article), is that they'll be maintaining the important aspects of the attraction, while updating this scene tastefully. I'm crossing my fingers they'll handle this one similar to how they're gonna handle JC.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Ah yes, the "I have black friends" argument.

Not even close.

 

[Professortango1]

I'm not even sure if that's possible, considering the space constraints within Fantasyland already present. They'd have to remove so much that's already there, it wouldn't be worth it. Plus, the attraction being put into Tokyo isn't anything like the original Fantasyland dark-rides, it's basically Flight of Passage, but Peter Pan themed, from my understanding. It would ruin much of the charm and cohesion of the overall courtyard, and isn't financially feasible. I'd imagine they'll remove the scene, in favor of another vignette, yet to be announced.

I didn't know that, it sounds pretty awesome. I assume the Pixie Hollow attraction will be more traditional. They could always rip out the Fantasyland theatre for a Peter Pan FOP ride. Or, in a perfect world, rip out IASW. I know it'll never happen, but a man can dream...

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

I didn't know that, it sounds pretty awesome. I assume the Pixie Hollow attraction will be more traditional. They could always rip out the Fantasyland theatre for a Peter Pan FOP ride. Or, in a perfect world, rip out IASW. I know it'll never happen, but a man can dream...

You had me in the first half there...

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

I think saying that we should disregard what a large portion of a minority group is saying because a small fraction doesn't agree is the problem. If most voices are saying something is an issue, we should listen to those voices, not use singular voices that disagree to invalidate the majority's complaints.

show me the data that says large portion of native americans find the indians in Peter Pan offensive. Show me the studies. Show me the surveys. Show me your evidence they have a problem with it more than the people trying to be offended for them.

 

[TP2000]

Just because you don’t hear something, it doesn’t mean that something is no longer used.

If someone who is not black refers to me as an “N” word, especially with the hard “ER” at the end, they are racist. Referring to me by that term isn’t directly related to the notion that that person considers their race to be superior to mine, yet the act is still racist. That’s just one example.

Neither Dictionary.com, nor your physical copies of dictionaries don’t go into the complex definition of racism, but it is what it is.

“What Makes the Red Man Red” can be interpreted as racist and is considered by many to be so, including Natives. Even if you want to call it “prejudice” or “bigoted,” that doesn’t help matters and still insinuates that the song is problematic.

Yes, all of that is true. But it seems we lose something in the language if we stop using more descriptive and accurate words like "prejudice" or "bigot". If something is merely insensitive, but we describe it instead as full-on "racist", eventually we demean and reduce the impact of a powerful word like racism.

We wouldn't want to only have two words to describe an outcome; "Disastrous" or "Fabulous". You need other words in between those two extremes to effectively communicate ideas and concepts, or else the ideas and concepts we discuss get muddled and reduced. At least in my opinion.

The use of the N word is not new. I was a HUGE fan of Sanford & Son 45 years ago, and watched it religiously. Yet even then I knew that its repeated use of the N word by the older actors/actresses on that show on national TV was not good. It popped your eyes open when used, even back then. At least for non-prejudiced white people watching who never used that word in conversation. So the use of that word, or other shocking words not used by polite people, is not a new concept.

 

[TP2000]

What's fascinating about the recent changes announced for Disneyland rides is that we all know these are not comments flooding in to Disneyland's Guest Relations department from customers who just got off the ride and were "offended". How do we know that? Because Disneyland has been closed for over a year now. Literally no one has paid to go on these rides for a year.

These complaints are coming mostly from Social Media and "experts" in academia, or busybodies creating change.org petitions from their mom's basement. And many of those people, especially in academia, are the types who wouldn't be caught dead at Disneyland. But they're happy to complain about it.

 

[TP2000]

Picking up media traction now:

Disney changed how it handles ‘Peter Pan.’ Will the Disneyland ride be next?

The ride shows culturally insensitive depictions of Native Americans.

www.sfgate.com

Interesting that Disney may have privately floated the idea of changing the ride already.

Not surprising. Anyone who is honestly surprised hasn't been paying attention to the news for the last couple of years.

Just wait until Disneyland reopens and the social justice kids find out there's an entire show dedicated to that hateful and racist man Abe Lincoln.

San Francisco School Board Dances Atop Lincoln's Grave

We might want to reflect on what this country will look like once all the "bad" names, statues, paintings and whatever else have been purged to make history as clean as a whistle—and as factually clear as mud.

www.newsweek.com

Or God help them if they go into the Tiki Room.

And honestly, what are they going to rename Trader Sam's at the Disneyland Hotel? That entire bar is built off the "racism" and "colonialism" and other bad stuff that is being removed from the Jungle Cruise. But the bar gets to stick around? That won't pass the smell test once the hotels and parks all reopen.

 

[_caleb]

I Googled up the lyrics to the song called "What Made The Red Man Red?", from Disney's 1953 classic Peter Pan.

Here they are...

Why does he ask you, "How?"
Why does he ask you, "How?"
Once the Injun didn't know
All the things that he know now
But the Injun, he sure learn a lot
And it's all from asking, "How?"

Hana Mana Ganda
Hana Mana Ganda
We translate for you
Hana means what mana means
And ganda means that too

When did he first say, "Ugh!"
When did he first say, "Ugh!
In the Injun book it say
When the first brave married squaw
He gave out with a big ugh
When he saw his Mother-in-Law

What made the red man red?
What made the red man red?
Let's go back a million years
To the very first Injun prince
He kissed a maid and start to blush
And we've all been blushin' since

You've got it from the headman
The real true story of the red man
No matter what's been written or said
Now you know why the red man's red!

Okay... So, some of that language we wouldn't use today in polite conversation. But in 1953? It was language that was widely accepted. In 1953 they also used the word "cripple" in polite society to describe a disabled person, and we'd never do that today.

But the core question is, are these lyrics racist and do they convey racist concepts? Are they trying to say that Indians are inherently inferior to other races biologically and/or physiologically? I can't find any evidence of that in the lyrics. I can't even see an instance of prejudice or bigotry. These lyrics appear to be trying to explain a different culture to the non-Indian audience, although they are describing it with insensitive terms. But prejudice? I don't see that. Bigotry? I don't see that either. Insensitive? Yes, I see that. Out of fashion? Yes, that's obvious! This is very unfashionable language.

But are these lyrics evidence of "racism"? No, not in the actual definition and proper use of the word racism.

If anything, those lyrics merely convey the idea that Indians share the basics of humanity that we all do, right down to disliking their mother-in-laws. They use very unfashionable language to do that, and they cross the line into insensitivity. But that doesn't make it racist.

I’m not sure where the idea came from that use of the term ”racist” should only be applied in the most extreme of cases. As though there was a continuum that begins with “insensitivity” and then moves to “prejudice,” and then to “bigotry,” and so on, with “racism” as the ultimate worst. The entire spectrum is racism. So even something mildly insensitive, if the insensitivity in question is related to race, is racist.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t degrees and kinds of racism. Something (or someone) can be accidentally racist, mildly racist, casually racist, overtly racist, etc. Society is constantly negotiating what is/isn’t racist, and to what degree it is racist.

I’m going to say that the lyrics to What Made The Red Man Red? are racist, regardless of the number of people who may or may not have taken offense to them in 1953. They were written from a majority perspective making fun of a minority group (a group that has historically been subject to very poor treatment by that majority). Every verse mocks Natives as being inferior.

Using a pidgin English, the themes are: they talk funny! They’re ugly (well, their mothers-in-law, anyway), look at their funny-colored skin! The entire song makes fun of people who have no social power and little chance to represent themselves. It’s a gag, probably done without malice, but the result solidifies and perpetuates negative stereotypes about Native people.

In my opinion, the question isn’t whether the song and depiction are or aren’t racist, it’s what to do with them now. It seems Disney’s answer is to raise the parental advisory rating, add an explanation and disclaimer, but leave the films otherwise untouched.