Isn't Princess and the Frog offensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
True, odds are these people are protesting SOTS even though the male chauvinism was pretty ramped in that time period. However, they are same kind of nuts that protested Harry Potter for being demonic years later. Notice how you don't see Universal retheming Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey because some church groups freak out about it.

Are they the same kind of nuts though?

The problems with SOTS are well-documented and have endured, and by attempting to suppress the film, Disney unintentionally drew attention to them; by contrast, the concerns of those church groups largely went away as it became clear how ridiculous such arguments were. Harry Potter, when read, actively proved those complaints false; to say viewing SOTS does not disprove those complaints is an understatement.

Now, it is very possible that the film would be better understood and looked upon more sympathetically had it been contextualized by Disney and/or had been made available to the public, even in a limited capacity. If you believe that the controversies are illegitimate and false, and are unhappy with how things have turned out, then you should direct your frustrations not at the public that's been complaining about the film, but at Disney; the conversations around the film have evolved the way they did precisely because Disney locked the film away and allowed what could have been a component its legacy to become its only legacy by staying silent while the SOTS backlash grew in the background, and now, it's gotten big enough that they feel they have no choice but to act.

And it's entirely their own fault.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Maybe the point is that a group of people don't want to be reminded that their ancestors were enslaved when they come to have fun at a theme park?
And what about the indigenous peoples of California and Florida whose ancestors were subjugated, enslaved and decimated by the Catholic Church? Why is it appropriate for a new ride to be all about going to a big Catholic party?
 

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
And what about the indigenous peoples of California and Florida whose ancestors were subjugated, enslaved and decimated by the Catholic Church? Why is it appropriate for a new ride to be all about going to a big Catholic party?

I, for one, have no clue what ride you're even referring to, but if you have an issue with it, then perhaps it warrants its own thread. Otherwise, whataboutism is a really lazy form of deflection.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I, for one, have no clue what ride you're even referring to, but if you have an issue with it, then perhaps it warrants its own thread. Otherwise, whataboutism is a really lazy form of deflection.
The ride that was just announced... That’s replacing Splash Mountain...
 

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
The ride that was just announced... That’s replacing Splash Mountain...

That's what I thought you referring to, but referring to PatF as a big Catholic party is not exactly on the nose, and regardless, connecting PotF to the plight of the indigenous is a stretch.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
That's what I thought you referring to, but referring to PatF as a big Catholic party is not exactly on the nose, and regardless, connecting PotF to the plight of the indigenous is a stretch.
The publicized storyline is about getting to a Mardi Gras parade. It’s a less prominent discussion the United States, but there are criticisms of carnival celebrations from indigenous peoples of the Americas regarding the festivities as a celebration of violent colonialism and cultural appropriation.
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
What makes the Randy Newman situation different from, say, the SOTS/Splash situation is that Randy Newman has never attempted to hide or deny the existence of those songs, unlike Disney with SOTS.
Incorrect. It was never hidden from the public that the source material and characters came from the film Song of the South. They heavily made it a known fact in advertising the ride. For example, The Ernest Goes to Splash Mountain special that aired in '89 before Splash Opened openly talked about it. So what the heck are you talking about man?!
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
I agree. Entering Disneyland should be a fun experience for everyone, that lets them escape the real world for a few hours. Having a ride in the park that makes them question their place in society is the complete antithesis of that idea. It's a good reason why Splash needs to be removed and replaced.
show me one piece of evidence a person has ever questioned their existence after walking off splash mountain, a ride full of animatronic animals and not one single human character? That statement is soo hyperbolic.
 

socalifornian

Well-Known Member
show me one piece of evidence a person has ever questioned their existence after walking off splash mountain, a ride full of animatronic animals and not one single human character? That statement is soo hyperbolic.
Bro they’re too young for you, their profile has been here less than a year
 

Mouse Trap

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely appreciate your insight. It's nice to hear from someone the issue actually touches on multiple levels. I hope those on this forum (and elsewhere) actually take the time to read this instead of just assuming why Splash Mountain should not exist in its current form.

My other question is do you personally find Princess And The Frog offensive? For whatever reason so many users here think it is even though they are not part of the Black community and couldn't possibly know what is offensive to anyone who is Black.
 
Last edited:

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. It was never hidden from the public that the source material and characters came from the film Song of the South. They heavily made it a known fact in advertising the ride. For example, The Ernest Goes to Splash Mountain special that aired in '89 before Splash Opened openly talked about it. So what the heck are you talking about man?!
Every single song in the movie is in the ride. Most of them are in the music queue.
 

Mouse Trap

Well-Known Member
Lets keep this discussion civil.

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

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

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

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

Tiana sings and dances at numerous points throughout this picture.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see how these issues won't come up in the future. IMO the only way to avoid controversy is to make an "honest/darker" film (which is not Disney's style), or to avoid early American stories all together.

There seems to be a sentiment here that films which focus on minority groups need to be about their struggle, hardship and suffering not about fairytales and dreams.

Did people in the 1920's frequently turn into frogs?
 
Last edited:

raven24

Well-Known Member
Definitely appreciate your insight. It's nice to hear from someone the issue actually touches on multiple levels. I hope those on this forum (and elsewhere) actually take the time to read this instead of just assuming why Splash Mountain should not exist in its current form.

My next question for you is do you personally find Princess And The Frog offensive? For whatever reason so many users here think it is even though they are not part of the Black community and couldn't possibly know what is offensive to anyone who is Black.

I’m black.

While I was (and still am a little) annoyed about Tiana being a frog for the majority of the film, and wish she had been given a black love interest, I don’t find the movie offensive.
 

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
Definitely appreciate your insight. It's nice to hear from someone the issue actually touches on multiple levels. I hope those on this forum (and elsewhere) actually take the time to read this instead of just assuming why Splash Mountain should not exist in its current form.

My other question is do you personally find Princess And The Frog offensive? For whatever reason so many users here think it is even though they are not part of the Black community and couldn't possibly know what is offensive to anyone who is Black.

I agree with raven24. It's annoying that Tiana was a frog most of the time, but I didn't find PotF offensive in the least. On the contrary, I felt as if it was a beautiful, solid story with really great music. Are there offensive elements in the story? Perhaps, but to echo a point that someone else has made, there's something offensive in nearly everything out there, it just depends on how deep you want to look.

The difference between PotF and SotS is that with PotF, you have to dig to find the offenses, versus SotS is pretty distasteful, even at the surface.
 

Minnie1976

Well-Known Member
There seems to be a sentiment here that films which focus on minority groups need to be about their struggle, hardship and suffering not about fairytales and dreams.

Did people in the 1920's frequently turn into frogs?
In New Orleans anything can happen if you drink enough! Especially, those delicious hurricanes from Pat O’ Briens! Then after people turn into frogs go to Cafe’ du Monde and have some delicious cafe’ au lait and beignets to help you sober up!!! LOL!!! Nothing is better!!!
 
Last edited:

el_super

Well-Known Member
And what about the indigenous peoples of California and Florida whose ancestors were subjugated, enslaved and decimated by the Catholic Church? Why is it appropriate for a new ride to be all about going to a big Catholic party?

You're not wrong. I can absolutely see some problems including a Mardi Gras celebration. Princess and the Frog isn't perfect. At this point though, I feel like we have to weigh whether the positive outcome of removing Song of the South outweighs the negative aspects of Princess and the Frog, and I feel it does.

I certainly think there is room to have a broader discussion over promoting certain stories that may be positive for one community but negative for another, but I don't necessarily know if it should be Disney's responsibility to solve those problems.

But to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if we are all back here in thirty years having the se discussion in the removal of Princess and the Frog.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
show me one piece of evidence a person has ever questioned their existence after walking off splash mountain, a ride full of animatronic animals and not one single human character? That statement is soo hyperbolic.

LOL I think at this point the only evidence you need is that Splash is being removed. You don't need to accept the why, but you need to accept that it will be gone.
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
LOL I think at this point the only evidence you need is that Splash is being removed. You don't need to accept the why, but you need to accept that it will be gone.
That's not evidence. That is Disney making a decision based on a witch hunt. All I haver ever seen and YOU have ever seen when leaving the ride is smiles as people look at the photo op pics and point out who is making what funny face and talk about how soaked they got as they walk away laughing and smiling as I have done and you well know you have done. No one, in the history of Disneyland has EVER seen someone get off Splash Mountain with a look they are contemplating their entire life and existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top Bottom