• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Jungle Cruise Re-Imagining

jagiord1

Well-Known Member
people here have wildly different definitions of what is racist and what is not and what is offensive and what is not.
That's the problem though. We don't get to make up what the definition of what Racism is. It's not subjective, and it doesn't change. If you personally aren't aware of what falls under the umbrella of what is racist, that doesn't mean that it's not racist, it means you're ignorant.
 

jeanericuser001

Well-Known Member
Sounds like this is getting a little too wedgie. How about a compromise. Disney can alter this jungle cruise but in return Trader sam will finally get his own gift shop at the exit of the jungle cruise so people can finally buy their very own shrunken head souvenir. Sound good? I can't help wondering what the next target will be. My guess is pecos bill's restaurant. That cartoon has some major red flags.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
yes that is my own opinion of how people are acting here. ya'll think that anyone that disagrees is uninformed and should be given a lesson so they can agree with you. its the plot of 1984.
I don’t think this.
"Several posters have written about routinely using common phrases that they did not know were racist until someone explained the origins of the phrases to them."

your quote...
ya'll think that its your job to teach people whats correct.
This is an example of others changing their minds, and it mirrors my own experience. I don’t think it is or should be everyone’s experience. I have been helped by some things I’ve learned along the way, and I do get excited that others may benefit as I have.
as i said we disagree not becuase we dont understand we disagree because we think youre wrong in your opinion. people here have wildly different definitions of what is racist and what is not and what is offensive and what is not.
In the posts of yours that I’ve read, you have not demonstrated that you understand but disagree with what I’ve bee saying.
instead of just understanding that people will disagree that whats offensive to you is not to me and accepting that others might enjoy something you hate, they want to guilt/shame/chastise/belittle them until they agree to their standard.

i find that divisive and problematic.
I’m not sure what I’ve said that would make you feel guilted/shamed/chastised/belittled, but that has no been my intent. I’m sorry that I came across that way.

It may be that the only thing many of us on these boards have in common is our appreciation for Disney parks. Heck, some people here don’t even enjoy the parks at all! But I enjoy the discussion and I appreciate the interaction when it is done in good faith.
 

rylouisbo

Well-Known Member
In the posts of yours that I’ve read, you have not demonstrated that you understand but disagree with what I’ve bee saying.
you say that i have not demonstrated that i understand... i feel exactly the same way from your posts... i dont feel like you actually understand any of the points i'm making... it seems like you solely want to talk at people until they either stop talking or agree with you. i'm not saying you need to agree with me but acting as if i "dont understand" constantly is belittling and not helpful. i'll say it again i understand your posts i foundationally disagree with how your form your opinions and the resulting opinions.
 

rylouisbo

Well-Known Member
That's the problem though. We don't get to make up what the definition of what Racism is. It's not subjective, and it doesn't change. If you personally aren't aware of what falls under the umbrella of what is racist, that doesn't mean that it's not racist, it means you're ignorant.
the webster definition of racism actually literally just changed recently lol... there used to be a day where the term had a clear meaning. that is not today though, there a numerous oppinions on what constitutes racism and apparently many levels of racism nowadays. for example some people say that sterotypes used in any form are racist, some think its only if the sterotype is used in a negative way. Some people think the aunt jamima logo was racist or that the illinois illini mascot is racist or that saying i dont see color is racist or saying unconscious bias is racist. then theres the thoughts on systemic racism and intuitional racism vs everyday racism. bottom line is that almost no two people have the same exact view on what racism means today. so no again no i'm not ignorant or uniformed on the issue :)
 

DisneyHead123

Active Member
That's the problem though. We don't get to make up what the definition of what Racism is. It's not subjective, and it doesn't change. If you personally aren't aware of what falls under the umbrella of what is racist, that doesn't mean that it's not racist, it means you're ignorant.
Respectfully disagree. There are very different, well intentioned philosophies here. The most salient distinction that comes to mind at the moment is probably the older philosophy of "colorblind, equality" vs. the newer philosophy of "Critical Race Theory, equity" (equity, if I understand correctly, means treating different groups differently because you are aiming for equal outcomes, while equality's goal is equal treatment). Also, if you do believe in Critical Race Theory as the guide to what "objective" racism looks like, it will by definition change over time, as a group's relative power over time changes. That is why, if I understand correctly, it is very difficult to really treat a white male in a way that is racist according to CRT, however, if, in 40 years white men were a severely oppressed minority, then it would be possible to treat them in a racist way. Last but not least, even who is considered 'white', 'white adjacent', 'white passing', etc., can change a fair bit if you go with the CRT lens, so one generation's person of color may be considered white in the next generation.

Not saying this to start a flame war - just felt the need to interject that I think people are on all different pages when they think of what 'racism' is. Some see it as a common sense idea, some as a specific philosophy, etc.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
you say that i have not demonstrated that i understand... i feel exactly the same way from your posts... i dont feel like you actually understand any of the points i'm making... it seems like you solely want to talk at people until they either stop talking or agree with you. i'm not saying you need to agree with me but acting as if i "dont understand" constantly is belittling and not helpful. i'll say it again i understand your posts i foundationally disagree with how your form your opinions and the resulting opinions.
I don’t actually understand most of the points you’ve been trying to make. I’m not sure if it has been your mocking tone, your lack of capitalization, your uncharitable summarizations of what others have posted, or if it’s just because we obviously don’t see things in the same way.

Let’s see if I can get it:
dont mind the update to the ride, the nonsensical pandering about "cultural sensitivity" is comical though. I'm just going to pretend i didnt hear their rambling explanation and enjoy the update as it has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity.
You think Disney is just “pandering to the woke mob” and “virtue signaling” with the announced changes.
what if i told you that there are many people of color who dont think the changes are helpful or necessary? what if i told you that there were many people of color who love splash mountain the way it is and enjoy the songs? its funny how people just choose to ignore opinions if they are opposing their stance.

i'd invite you to expand your bubble to find these people because theyre are alot of them out there :)
You think that opinions from Black people on different sides of an issue cancel each other out.
no mix up as there is literally no mild racism in the jungle cruise.
You think you know what racism is and are in a better position than others to say what is and isn’t racist.
yea that just means you dont know what racism means if you include jungle cruise in your list of racist things... and disney doesnt actually care about racism, its naive to believe that while seeing them make bank off china where racism is sponsored by the chinese government. i'll believe they care when they take a stand against china... lol
In addition to your expertise in racism, you’re also a Disney insider with strong opinions about their dealings in China.
yea some people do regard elements of everything/anything as racist. if your logic is that a few people dont like something so therefore its racist because they consider it racist then literally nothing is safe as a few people could find literally anything racist or offensive. thats a horrible standard.
You think identifying racial insensitivity is a slippery slope that will result in you not being able to enjoy things you like.
honestly why are you stopping at jungle cruise? Dumbo rides should be removed. Peter Pan rides should be removed. their moves are offensive to some. Pirates of the carribean should be removed, its a ride about pirates stealing and destroying a city, how is that not offensive? country bear jamboree should be removed as its uses offensive stereotypes. Most of EPCOT is just profiting off of sterotypes of foreign cultures. why are pixar movies safe? the pixar ceo was abusing people so those movies should be cancelled. blah blah
You are dismissive of the idea of being sensitive to racist imagery.
wait people dont think that there were good parts of colonialism? not even improved medicine, education or human rights? yes human rights were advanced greatly thanks to colonialism but that requires an honest look at history to see.
not seeing how colonialism helped advance religious, womens, racial, lgbt human rights just shows pure ignorance of history.
You think “colonialism” is responsible for medicine, education, and human rights. You also think that those who don’t agree with this are ignorant.
oh you misunderstood, the statement was in response to another. It might be hard to comprehend but the world and history are not black and white. things arent just good or bad. there were many bad things about colonialism and there were many good things that came out of it. i know its easier to pretend like something is just bad or good but thats not reality.
You can see nuance and degrees of goodness and badness, but you think others are lazy or unrealistic if they disagree with your opinions about what falls into those categories.
also "the burden of the white man" now youre just being racist... again ironic from people complaining about things they think are racist...
You think that any mention of racial sensitivity is racist, and people who care about these things are racist.

You say I’m not understanding. But I want to understand. What am I missing?
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
the webster definition of racism actually literally just changed recently lol... there used to be a day where the term had a clear meaning. that is not today though, there a numerous oppinions on what constitutes racism and apparently many levels of racism nowadays. for example some people say that sterotypes used in any form are racist, some think its only if the sterotype is used in a negative way. Some people think the aunt jamima logo was racist or that the illinois illini mascot is racist or that saying i dont see color is racist or saying unconscious bias is racist. then theres the thoughts on systemic racism and intuitional racism vs everyday racism. bottom line is that almost no two people have the same exact view on what racism means today. so no again no i'm not ignorant or uniformed on the issue :)
I agree. Society determines what is and isn’t racism. Heck, society even defines the concept of “race” in general. I think we’re in a time where we are in the process of re-defining these concepts.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
Respectfully disagree. There are very different, well intentioned philosophies here. The most salient distinction that comes to mind at the moment is probably the older philosophy of "colorblind, equality" vs. the newer philosophy of "Critical Race Theory, equity" (equity, if I understand correctly, means treating different groups differently because you are aiming for equal outcomes, while equality's goal is equal treatment). Also, if you do believe in Critical Race Theory as the guide to what "objective" racism looks like, it will by definition change over time, as a group's relative power over time changes. That is why, if I understand correctly, it is very difficult to really treat a white male in a way that is racist according to CRT, however, if, in 40 years white men were a severely oppressed minority, then it would be possible to treat them in a racist way. Last but not least, even who is considered 'white', 'white adjacent', 'white passing', etc., can change a fair bit if you go with the CRT lens, so one generation's person of color may be considered white in the next generation.

Not saying this to start a flame war - just felt the need to interject that I think people are on all different pages when they think of what 'racism' is. Some see it as a common sense idea, some as a specific philosophy, etc.
I can’t in good faith agree that a label that can ruin a person’s life is based on a subjective opinion.

If you get labelled a racist, you’re done. It’s over.

It would be one thing if it was simply the changing of the word’s meaning, but we are still attaching the same severity and punishments that were specifically targeted to the original meaning (unjustified hatred against a person based on the color of their skin or their culture).

It I get into an argument with a person over a movie, and they just so happen to have a different color skin than myself. I love the movie and they hate it, which is the basis for the argument, but they may perceive that I’m only disagreeing with them because of their skin color. To me, that would be uncalled for and unfair, but maybe they have trust issues due to events in the past, who knows.

It doesn’t seem right to attach such an immense level of subjectivity to a label with such severity. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what your saying, but I just wanted to get this observation off my chest. I don’t see a viable path towards unity and inclusivity with this kind of behaviour normalized.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
I agree. Society determines what is and isn’t racism. Heck, society even defines the concept of “race” in general. I think we’re in a time where we are in the process of re-defining these concepts.

So does it boil down to a lack of education when there is an inability to express basic concepts? Choosing imprecise ideologically charged words because they have a greater impact than a nuanced argument that might be passed over due to lack of comprehension by its audience? Frankly, as a society, I believe that we're in a "race to the bottom" where everything falls to the least common denominator.
 

rylouisbo

Well-Known Member
I don’t actually understand most of the points you’ve been trying to make. I’m not sure if it has been your mocking tone, your lack of capitalization, your uncharitable summarizations of what others have posted, or if it’s just because we obviously don’t see things in the same way.

Let’s see if I can get it:
to summarize no you dont get it, this comment makes it obvious that you should maybe try to actually understand what people are saying to you.
You think Disney is just “pandering to the woke mob” and “virtue signaling” with the announced changes.
disney is obviously pandering to the woke mob, you cant think they actually care about racism while also using a country that has state sponsored racism to make money.
You think that opinions from Black people on different sides of an issue cancel each other out.
no i think you quoting black people that agree with you as evidence and ignoring the ones that dont agree with you is wrong.
You think you know what racism is and are in a better position than others to say what is and isn’t racist.
i have an opinion on what racism is and its very different from yours, i also think your stance on racism is divisive and not helpful.
In addition to your expertise in racism, you’re also a Disney insider with strong opinions about their dealings in China.
condescending tone... i've never said i'm an expert on racism, china is a useful example here as it shows obvious hypocrisy on their racism stance.
You think identifying racial insensitivity is a slippery slope that will result in you not being able to enjoy things you like.
no i think your opinion on what is racial insensitivity is warped and i've actually said it think the jungle cruise changes will make the ride better.
You are dismissive of the idea of being sensitive to racist imagery.
not at all, i disagree with what you consider to be racist imagery. i dont like racist imagery. i actually cant think of anyone that likes racist imagery so thats an odd point...
You think “colonialism” is responsible for medicine, education, and human rights. You also think that those who don’t agree with this are ignorant.
nope didnt read what i said numerous times. i said colonialism is not an absolute evil. it had many good things that came from it and many bad things. theres literally research papers and books written on this subject it. educate yourself?
You can see nuance and degrees of goodness and badness, but you think others are lazy or unrealistic if they disagree with your opinions about what falls into those categories.
said nothing close to this
You think that any mention of racial sensitivity is racist, and people who care about these things are racist.
again no idea what youre talking about here as i said nothing close to this.
 
Wow I really tried to stay out of it but I cannot help myself. I cannot look away.
yes my annoyance is not that i think the changes will make the ride worse, i actually think the update will make the ride better.

my annoyance is more with the optics and how disney is pandering and pretending to be doing this for moral reasons while thats just ridiculous considering everything else disney has been doing.
I sort of agree with you in that their primary concern is avoiding bad PR because it is good for business. I have good reason to believe that these changes weren't initiated internally and that a group who was offended by a long list of Disney park rides scared them into initiating these changes. So many companies do this nowadays, and while it is disingenuous for some, it doesn't mean that Disney doesn't have good intentions. They're doing the work to try to accommodate these concerns and there's likely to be some subjectively good results and some subjectively bad ones.
if colonialism is a problem then the united states is a problem and disney itself is a problem. colonialism like all things had good and bad people need to stop rewriting history and pretending colonialism was a pure evil or any different than the other horrible things happening at the same time. should native peoples not be shown because they practiced human sacrifice, no because even though that was horrible there were many great things that native peoples have contributed to society... stop the cancel culture.
Colonialism affects every aspect of our world today. There is not a single thing that is not affected by the world's long history of colonialism. And yes there was probably some good that precipitated from it but I'm genuinely curious why you feel the need to defend it so staunchly? No one wants to celebrate the good about colonialism because you cannot do that without remembering the true atrocities that were committed in its pursuit.
When Marc Davis was tasked with making suggestions for Disneyland's Jungle Cruise in the early 60s, he was working with the layout and set pieces originally staged by Harper Goff. With WDW, Marc had a chance to redesign the whole show from scratch and the end result is truly his version of the ride. For that reason I'll be sad to see it altered in Florida, but if they want to make changes there are a number of concepts he did that WDI could draw from that do not involve the problematic "savages".
I really appreciate you trying to get this thread back on track and I'm going to try to support you by saying they should use Marc Davis' idea for the man eating plant!
EC19B6RU4AIPOQz.jpg
 

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
Wow I really tried to stay out of it but I cannot help myself. I cannot look away.

I sort of agree with you in that their primary concern is avoiding bad PR because it is good for business. I have good reason to believe that these changes weren't initiated internally and that a group who was offended by a long list of Disney park rides scared them into initiating these changes. So many companies do this nowadays, and while it is disingenuous for some, it doesn't mean that Disney doesn't have good intentions. They're doing the work to try to accommodate these concerns and there's likely to be some subjectively good results and some subjectively bad ones.

Colonialism affects every aspect of our world today. There is not a single thing that is not affected by the world's long history of colonialism. And yes there was probably some good that precipitated from it but I'm genuinely curious why you feel the need to defend it so staunchly? No one wants to celebrate the good about colonialism because you cannot do that without remembering the true atrocities that were committed in its pursuit.

I really appreciate you trying to get this thread back on track and I'm going to try to support you by saying they should use Marc Davis' idea for the man eating plant!
View attachment 527391
You’ve won the internet/board! This would be a great replacement for Trader Sam, and it could actually take his place as the “dramatic finale” of the ride. With perhaps an Easter egg for Sam left behind in the form of a mask and or skulls scattered around.

You could also retain some of the jungle themed skulls and and spears that deck out the ride and Adventureland as a whole while remaining thematically consistent. The finale could appear as an “epic battle scene” hinting at relics used by native tribes in a war against the locals and jungles giant invasive plant species.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
So does it boil down to a lack of education when there is an inability to express basic concepts? Choosing imprecise ideologically charged words because they have a greater impact than a nuanced argument that might be passed over due to lack of comprehension by its audience? Frankly, as a society, I believe that we're in a "race to the bottom" where everything falls to the least common denominator.
I do think the conversation is hindered by our rhetoric. When it comes to conversations about race, people often end up fighting over the rules of engagement and definitions of terms. To your point, society is so fractured these days that different factions/subcultures each have their own definitions of all the words we use in the discussion (see the weaponized uses of “woke,” “inclusion,” etc.). And yes, conversations become flame wars of mocking, condescension, and outrage that just drives people further into their echo chambers.

But I still think these conversations are worthwhile and can be productive. I hinted above (as others have) that engaging in these back-and-forth debates has helped me process a lot of what I think about these issues.

Others, on the other hand, find all of this really annoying. I try to keep that in mind, but sometimes I get carried away.
 

rylouisbo

Well-Known Member
Colonialism affects every aspect of our world today. There is not a single thing that is not affected by the world's long history of colonialism. And yes there was probably some good that precipitated from it but I'm genuinely curious why you feel the need to defend it so staunchly? No one wants to celebrate the good about colonialism because you cannot do that without remembering the true atrocities that were committed in its pursuit.
i'd argue that there was more good to come out of colonialism than bad. i dont think that justifies the bad i'm just looking at history and seeing the results that came from it and can argue that there were many many good things that came from it, again that doesnt justify the bad it simply disputes the claim i was responding to that said colonialism = racsim. which was ridiculous. i dont think you need to bring up the bad of everything when mentioning it. i dont feel the need to mention that washington owned slaves when i speak about his role in the revolution, that doesnt mean i condone owning slaves. i dont think its needed to mention that mlk cheated on his wife when mentioning his role in civil rights. i'm tired the attempt to rewrite history and ignore facts to support peoples politics now.
 

rylouisbo

Well-Known Member
somebody had mentioned it earlier but the whole ride is based on the romanticization of colonization so if we are to believe that colonization is bad then the whole ride is problematic and should be changed like splash mountain.

i personally dont agree and dont mind it as is but this change doesnt even seem to solve the problem of the ride so its odd that anybody would be happy about it if their concern was insensitivity.

regardless i'm hoping they keep the humor and update the tech/effects.
 
Last edited:

corran horn

Well-Known Member

DisneyHead123

Active Member
I can’t in good faith agree that a label that can ruin a person’s life is based on a subjective opinion.

If you get labelled a racist, you’re done. It’s over.

It would be one thing if it was simply the changing of the word’s meaning, but we are still attaching the same severity and punishments that were specifically targeted to the original meaning (unjustified hatred against a person based on the color of their skin or their culture).

It I get into an argument with a person over a movie, and they just so happen to have a different color skin than myself. I love the movie and they hate it, which is the basis for the argument, but they may perceive that I’m only disagreeing with them because of their skin color. To me, that would be uncalled for and unfair, but maybe they have trust issues due to events in the past, who knows.

It doesn’t seem right to attach such an immense level of subjectivity to a label with such severity. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what your saying, but I just wanted to get this observation off my chest. I don’t see a viable path towards unity and inclusivity with this kind of behaviour normalized.
I feel like I could respond to this post on two levels. The first would be a deep dive into philosophy and is anything truly objective, is there objective morality, is it all just human constructs and enculturation, etc., etc., etc. This would result in about elebenty billion posts going round and round that would not ultimately resolve anything because humans have pondered these same questions for eons without a definitive answer (although I would find it fun, ha ha.)

On a more practical level though - whether or not there are objective moral codes out there - I think the issue at the moment is that our whole paradigm surrounding racism changed very, very fast, in historical terms, and not everybody was on board with those changes. Whether or not a society's moral codes are actually 'objective' is a philosophical debate, but I agree that in a smoothly functioning society, they should more or less seem objective to the vast majority of the members. Having stores only work if pretty much everyone thinks to themselves "stealing is wrong". Traffic lights only work if pretty much everyone thinks "red means stop". Having a government only works if everyone accepts it as a legitimate authority. Etc. That's not to say that there's no room for debate on important issues but we do have to have a baseline of shared understanding. Right now, depending on your age, geographical location, socioeconomic status, etc., people have very different ideas about what constitutes 'racism'. One person might see a 'micro agression' as true racism, while another person sees calling someone racist based on micro aggressions as a symptom of a dangerous 'cancel culture'. Further complicating this is the fact that we have paid relatively more attention to race relations in the past few years, and relatively less to class relations, and they are both very important. That attitudes about these new norms tend to break down along class lines doesn't help the situation at all, especially in an era of ever escalating income inequality.

How all of this will shake out, I don't know. It will resolve one way or another, but how exactly is anybody's guess. There will be plenty of articles and books speculating on this theme, no doubt. As far as whether or not things "should" be this way - I would say that this is neither here nor there at this point. Maybe people shouldn't be divided, but the fact is that they are divided, and that's just the way it is at the moment, there's nothing you or I could say here that would change what is already a reality.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
I feel like I could respond to this post on two levels. The first would be a deep dive into philosophy and is anything truly objective, is there objective morality, is it all just human constructs and enculturation, etc., etc., etc. This would result in about elebenty billion posts going round and round that would not ultimately resolve anything because humans have pondered these same questions for eons without a definitive answer (although I would find it fun, ha ha.)

On a more practical level though - whether or not there are objective moral codes out there - I think the issue at the moment is that our whole paradigm surrounding racism changed very, very fast, in historical terms, and not everybody was on board with those changes. Whether or not a society's moral codes are actually 'objective' is a philosophical debate, but I agree that in a smoothly functioning society, they should more or less seem objective to the vast majority of the members. Having stores only work if pretty much everyone thinks to themselves "stealing is wrong". Traffic lights only work if pretty much everyone thinks "red means stop". Having a government only works if everyone accepts it as a legitimate authority. Etc. That's not to say that there's no room for debate on important issues but we do have to have a baseline of shared understanding. Right now, depending on your age, geographical location, socioeconomic status, etc., people have very different ideas about what constitutes 'racism'. One person might see a 'micro agression' as true racism, while another person sees calling someone racist based on micro aggressions as a symptom of a dangerous 'cancel culture'. Further complicating this is the fact that we have paid relatively more attention to race relations in the past few years, and relatively less to class relations, and they are both very important. That attitudes about these new norms tend to break down along class lines doesn't help the situation at all, especially in an era of ever escalating income inequality.

How all of this will shake out, I don't know. It will resolve one way or another, but how exactly is anybody's guess. There will be plenty of articles and books speculating on this theme, no doubt. As far as whether or not things "should" be this way - I would say that this is neither here nor there at this point. Maybe people shouldn't be divided, but the fact is that they are divided, and that's just the way it is at the moment, there's nothing you or I could say here that would change what is already a reality.
I’m not sure if there’s anything I could add to this.
 

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

Top Bottom