Dumbo and Peter Pan rides set for removal?

[_caleb]

Yes, but those are concepts in the film that would more accurately be described as prejudice or insensitivity. They insensitively make fun of American Indians (a cultural thing in Victorian era Britain; they were really fascinated with North American Indian tribes then), but there is no evidence the writers think American Indians are biologically or inherently inferior.

The lyrics don't claim their "moms" were ugly. It was a mother-in-law joke. Which leads us to...



The joke about the mother-in-law is actually an attempt to paint a sense of shared humanity with the Indians. The mother-in-law joke was a joke topic well used in the mid 20th century, often overused. It was a popular joke used on the Jungle Cruise about the elephants into the 1980's. By making a joke about Indian mothers-in-law, they are establishing that the Indians may have red skin but they are just like us.

I can post the lyrics again, but they're long.

Fair enough. This seems like an extremely (perhaps unearned) charitable interpretation, but if we assume the best, the “shared humanity” explanation works.

The “fascination” Victorian society had with “native“ peoples is well-known. But it was, to use your preferred terms, a racially insensitive fascination. The issue becomes more complex when we consider how cultures changed between turn of the century UK, 1950s America, and today (the song obviously being a product of 1950s Disney/Hollywood).

 

[_caleb]

Redskin was also the name of a pro football team until just a couple months ago. It was not considered a racial slur until more recently. Much like words like "cripple" or "broad" weren't considered rude or a slur, but now they are and no one would dare use those words in public any more.

Redskin is a word that is now considered insensitive and based in prejudice, but I can't find evidence that it was "racist" when the NFL chose it, any more than it was racist when Walt's songwriters chose it.

And certainly not any more than using the term "White" or "Black" to rather inaccurately describe a person's race is racist.

Not considered by whom?

 

[_caleb]

I never said that it did. Only it depicts all germans as evil men who want to take over the world so therefore the film is racist and xenophobic and must be banned like Song of the South. You should still go with Baby Yoda.

It seems like The Rocketeer only depicts evil Germans who wanted to take over the world as evil and wanting to take over the world. And German isn’t a race. And I call foul for bringing in Song of the South unprovoked (it’s the Godwin’s Law of Disney analogies).

But I’ll still consider Baby Yoda, since he is clearly anti-racist. Also, I award you 10 points for the use of xenophobic.

 

[TP2000]

The "n word" wasn't considered "racist" for decades, but it was a word used to describe a race of people in a dehumanized way. So regardless of it is considered a racial slur, its a negative term for people of a certain race...which is by definition, racist.

But that change took place well over a hundred years ago. And you can easily see that even when it was acceptable to use in conversation, that was relegated to only certain parts of the country. Official language and federal documents from the 1800's don't contain that word, which tells us that even then it was understood there were more polite and acceptable words to call people who are Black (a word that didn't enter the lexicon until 55 years ago).

Things evolve. Standards change. Heck, now we aren't even supposed to use the word "handicapped", and just a couple decades ago that word was rather new and very stylishly replaced previous words like "crippled" for physical disabilities or "retarded" for mental disabilities. But even President Obama let slip the use of the phrase "retarded" on national TV a few years ago making fun of something, which his handlers immediately had to apologize for. But he was showing his age there, obviously.

Schools in New York are now instructing their faculty and students to stop using the words "mom", or "dad" or "parents" and instead only use the word "guardian" or "grown up", because the other words are somehow insensitive and "not inclusive".

Who knows what words will be considered rude or insensitive 20 years from now? 50 years from now?

 

[Professortango1]

I never said that it did. Only it depicts all germans as evil men who want to take over the world so therefore the film is racist and xenophobic and must be banned like Song of the South. You should still go with Baby Yoda.

It portrays Nazis as evil men who want to take over the world. As we learn in the film, there are American Nazis who are supporting the invasion. If anything, it shows that the issue is the concepts, not the nationality.

 

[_caleb]

All I know is that it does not have 1 German in the film who is not evil or represented as underhanded. Every one is a caricature of "EVIL NAZI" and does not go out of its way to show not all People from GERMANY from that time period were like that. I will take your 10 points.

Ok. I see you point. If there were no other depictions of Germans available to Americans in 1991, and if Germans in the late 1930s were an oppressed and exploited class of powerless people, and Germans today struggled for equality in society, I might agree.

A good question (for another thread and another day) might be: Over the years, how have Germans depicted Germans of the late 1930 in film?

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Because they have found a way to reclaim the word, just as the gay community has found ways to reclaim their slurs and women have found ways to reclaim "b****."

It's not about reclaiming. If by definition it was always a racist term then there is no reclaiming it since it was not theirs to begin with it if it was meant as a derogatory term. If they want the word gone from the lexicon of the world, then they should also stop using it and keeping it alive.

 

[_caleb]

But that change took place well over a hundred years ago. And you can easily see that even when it was acceptable to use in conversation, that was relegated to only certain parts of the country. Official language and federal documents from the 1800's don't contain that word, which tells us that even then it was understood there were more polite and acceptable words to call people who are Black (a word that didn't enter the lexicon until 55 years ago).

Things evolve. Standards change. Heck, now we aren't even supposed to use the word "handicapped", and just a couple decades ago that word was rather new and very stylishly replaced previous words like "crippled" for physical disabilities or "retarded" for mental disabilities. But even President Obama let slip the use of the phrase "retarded" on national TV a few years ago making fun of something, which his handlers immediately had to apologize for. But he was showing his age there, obviously.

Schools in New York are now instructing their faculty and students to stop using the words "mom", or "dad" or "parents" and instead only use the word "guardian" or "grown up", because the other words are somehow insensitive and "not inclusive".

Who knows what words will be considered rude or insensitive 20 years from now? 50 years from now?

Do you mean to say that Black (as related to race) didn’t enter the lexicon until 55 years ago? That’s an interesting idea. Where did you get this notion?

I only ask because it seems like the N-word could be traced to the Spanish/Latin/Italic word, negro which translates to the English word, back. Wouldn’t that date back hundreds of years ago?

 

[CaptinEO]

I'm just going off of what I believe Robert Zemeckis said a few years ago - that Disney doesn't care about Roger and hates Jessica.

Sounds about right since Disney has no understanding of what made them popular and why people love their old films.

Disney just thinks the company is all about Mickey Mouse, Spider Man , and bad Star Wars fanfiction that they made up.

 

[Professortango1]

It's not about reclaiming. If by definition it was always a racist term then there is no reclaiming it since it was not theirs to begin with it if it was meant as a derogatory term. If they want the word gone from the lexicon of the world, then they should also stop using it and keeping it alive.

If a minority group finds a way to transform violent language, then I don't think the majority has any business telling them what they can/can't do with it.

 

[_caleb]

It's not about reclaiming. If by definition it was always a racist term then there is no reclaiming it since it was not theirs to begin with it if it was meant as a derogatory term. If they want the word gone from the lexicon of the world, then they should also stop using it and keeping it alive.

Lots of derogatory terms get reappropriated by the disparaged parties. It happens all the time!

Patriot, for example, didn’t always mean “someone who loves their county.“ Yankee was likewise reclaimed by colonial Americans. Methodist, Protestant, Jesuit, and Jew were all negative names put on people who then co-opted them for limited acceptable use.

 

[The Mom]

Do you mean to say that Black (as related to race) didn’t enter the lexicon until 55 years ago? That’s an interesting idea. Where did you get this notion?

I only ask because it seems like the N-word could be traced to the Spanish/Latin/Italic word, negro which translates to the English word, back. Wouldn’t that date back hundreds of years ago?

The English word Black to identify a racial group did enter US lexicon about 50 -60 years ago. I witnessed it. When I was growing up - 1950s &60s- Negro or Colored were the polite terms. Then came the Black Power movement, so Black became the polite term, along with African-American.

Using black to describe skin color is hundreds - if not thousands - of years old. But people using the proper name Black to describe themselves is relatively new - unless you're less than 50 years old..

 

[Californian Elitist]

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.

But again, we haven’t stopped using words like “prejudice” and “bigoted.”

There’s nothing wrong with black people, including the ones on Sanford and Son, using the “N” word. I feel like that word lost shock value centuries ago, but that’s just me.

 

[_caleb]

The English word Black to identify a racial group did enter US lexicon about 50 -60 years ago. I witnessed it. When I was growing up - 1950s &60s- Negro or Colored were the polite terms. Then came the Black Power movement, so Black became the polite term, along with African-American.

Using black to describe skin color is hundreds - if not thousands - of years old. But people using the proper name Black to describe themselves is relatively new - unless you're less than 50 years old..

This made me curious about the term and its usage! I tracked down a journal article about the subject, and it supports this:

“Until the late 1960s, black was an insult for many Negroes, and the nation- alist/separatists' campaign for the term posed a test for conformity for both Negroes and whites. In addition to imposing new language on whites, it aimed at black mobilization and self-assertion. Black was starkly confrontational and militant, and imposing it on Negroes forced them not only to accept but to embrace theretofore undesirable racial qualities. This is the power of naming, and the public success and private partial failure of the idea that black is beautiful illustrate both the reach and limitations of the 1960s separatists' cultural revolution. After twenty years, tension between lighter- and darker-skinned blacks still surfaces sometimes, and standards of beauty have still not been dominated uniformly by an African ideal. Jesse Jackson now rejects the term black because it is inaccurate: "Black does not describe our situation. In my household there are seven people and none of us have the same complexion. We are of African American heritage."

And another, which I find more succinct:

“In the mid 1960s with the rise of the Black Power Movement the term “black” started to gain popularity, overtime the label replaced Negro as the group identifier. They used the formerly negative term Black and made it positive to define themselves and their goals. Also “from a linguistic point of view Black was seen as the best parallel and counterweight to White.” African-American leaders demanded this symbolic racial parallel in order to provoke racial unity within their group and racial equality as Americans. They wanted all the rights of their white counterparts. This process also symbolized that Black Americans were “uniting in their struggle against racial intolerance in America”, but it failed to make America a color-blind country.55 However, because the term was racially loaded, the presence of racial division was continued.”

Fascinating!

 

[Practical Pig]

The English word Black to identify a racial group did enter US lexicon about 50 -60 years ago. I witnessed it. When I was growing up - 1950s &60s- Negro or Colored were the polite terms. Then came the Black Power movement, so Black became the polite term, along with African-American.

Using black to describe skin color is hundreds - if not thousands - of years old. But people using the proper name Black to describe themselves is relatively new - unless you're less than 50 years old..

My mother was a middle-school teacher in the fifties through the eighties She preferred to use the word "colored" to refer to African Americans into the early seventies because she thought that was the approved term at that time. Then in the early seventies when she used the word in class, an AA student stood up and said, as I recall her telling, "excuse me. Nobody has 'colored' me!" This was a ninth-grader. She never used it again.

The times they were a changing.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

As the famous song goes, “Red, Brown, Yellow, Black and White, they are precious in His sight! Jesus loves the little children of the world.”

 

[spock8113]

Time to ditch Alice in Wonderland because it promotes drugs! (White Rabbit -" and the one that mother gives you don't do anything at all")
It is also offense to me as I am depicted as Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, TWICE!
It's offensive to worms, cats, queens and playing cards. Off with MY head! (not violent at all)
And don't get me started on the violence and sexual content in the bible.
Where's the TYLENOL?

 

[PiratesMansion]

Time to ditch Alice in Wonderland because it promotes drugs! (White Rabbit -" and the one that mother gives you don't do anything at all")
It is also offense to me as I am depicted as Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, TWICE!
It's offensive to worms, cats, queens and playing cards. Off with MY head! (not violent at all)
And don't get me started on the violence and sexual content in the bible.
Where's the TYLENOL?

 

[_caleb]

Time to ditch Alice in Wonderland because it promotes drugs! (White Rabbit -" and the one that mother gives you don't do anything at all")
It is also offense to me as I am depicted as Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, TWICE!
It's offensive to worms, cats, queens and playing cards. Off with MY head! (not violent at all)
And don't get me started on the violence and sexual content in the bible.
Where's the TYLENOL?

I understand that you might feel as though society is just on the hunt for more things to deem “offensive,” but this phenomenon really isn’t anything new. Every generation (collectively) has always reflected on culture and sought to determine what’s ok and what isn’t. Art, entertainment, and youth push the boundaries, while commentators, politicians, and religious leaders pull them back.

I’d encourage you not to boil everything down to “what offends me.” This is a gross oversimplification of the broad social conversation, and if you can’t see beyond the caricature, you don’t really understand what’s going on.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Time to ditch Alice in Wonderland because it promotes drugs! (White Rabbit -" and the one that mother gives you don't do anything at all")
It is also offense to me as I am depicted as Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, TWICE!
It's offensive to worms, cats, queens and playing cards. Off with MY head! (not violent at all)
And don't get me started on the violence and sexual content in the bible.
Where's the TYLENOL?

This sarcasm isn’t an accurate depiction of what we’ve been discussing in this thread at all. I’d argue to the same for what’s happening outside here as well.

Folks actually think this is a new concept when really it isn’t.