Jungle Cruise Re-Imagining

[rylouisbo]

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.

agreed. i would just add that in speaking about how the paradigm surrounding racism shifting very very fast, it seems to me that it is shifting so quickly because it is being forced from top down. from my perspective there seems to be an small more elite group of politicians/celebrities/companies/academia that are creating new rules for everyone else and pushing it through society when the majority of society is not on board with the new standards. i think that is part of the problem, its not a natural shift and i think that is part of why people are getting more divisive.

 

[Brer Panther]

There aren't any racist scenes in Splash to alter. (Unless you count the mockery of hillbillies.) The problem is the movie it came from.

But the ride is not the movie, and the movie is not the ride. It'd be like removing Dumbo the Flying Elephant simply over Dumbo's racist elements, none of which are in the ride.

 

[Brer Oswald]

The cycle never ends.

 

[HauntedPirate]

But the ride is not the movie, and the movie is not the ride. It'd be like removing Dumbo the Flying Elephant simply over Dumbo's racist elements, none of which are in the ride.

Replace “Dumbo” with “Splash Mountain” and that’s what we’re looking at there.

 

[_caleb]

agreed. i would just add that in speaking about how the paradigm surrounding racism shifting very very fast, it seems to me that it is shifting so quickly because it is being forced from top down. from my perspective there seems to be an small more elite group of politicians/celebrities/companies/academia that are creating new rules for everyone else and pushing it through society when the majority of society is not on board with the new standards. i think that is part of the problem, its not a natural shift and i think that is part of why people are getting more divisive.

You keep using the word forced. How does that apply to Disney changing scenes in the Jungle Cruise?

 

[rylouisbo]

You keep using the word forced. How does that apply to Disney changing scenes in the Jungle Cruise?

i use the word forced because the jungle cruise ride having "problematic elements" removed is not something most people wanted or cared about. there are about a billion things in disney that people universally want changed or updated, instead of doing those things they are choosing to change a ride people like.

similarly splash mountain is a ride people like and is very popular but despite that, instead of changing a ride people dont really like, they chose to change splash mountain because they wanted to make a statement. that is forcing the change on people. stuff like that can be found all through society not just disney. webster changing the definition of racism not because there is a new universally accept definition but because thats the definition that webster wants everyone to follow. its top down which historically has always been a poor way to implement change.

 

[_caleb]

i use the word forced because the jungle cruise ride having "problematic elements" removed is not something most people wanted or cared about. there are about a billion things in disney that people universally want changed or updated, instead of doing those things they are choosing to change a ride people like.

similarly splash mountain is a ride people like and is very popular but despite that, instead of changing a ride people dont really like, they chose to change splash mountain because they wanted to make a statement. that is forcing the change on people. stuff like that can be found all through society not just disney. webster changing the definition of racism not because there is a new universally accept definition but because thats the definition that webster wants everyone to follow. its top down which historically has always been a poor way to implement change.

Would you prefer Disney be “forced” to keep the scenes they no longer want to feature in the ride? Or that Merriam-Webster be ”forced” to keep their previous definition of racism? I don’t understand how any of this is being forced on anyone.

 

[rylouisbo]

Would you prefer Disney be “forced” to keep the scenes they no longer want to feature in the ride? Or that Merriam-Webster be ”forced” to keep their previous definition of racism? I don’t understand how any of this is being forced on anyone.

i mean its basic business to create a product your customers want so disney keeping the popular ride as it is, is not really forcing them to do anything. theyre an amusement park and can do what they want as a private entity but my point still stands as its top down change forced upon people that doesnt have popular support.

merriam webster changing their definitions defeats the purpose of a dictionary, its supposed to be where everyone can go to see definitions that we can all agree with. now its lost credibility to many and further divided society in general as we cant even agree on basic definitions anymore.

maybe youre taking the term "forced" too literally. nobody is being kidnapped by disney and forced to ride tianas splash mountain. its a forced change as it is happening because a few have decided that the many should do/believe something as opposed to a natural change where popular opinion slowly changes and then is followed by people like disney and webster changing to align with society.

 

[DisneyHead123]

agreed. i would just add that in speaking about how the paradigm surrounding racism shifting very very fast, it seems to me that it is shifting so quickly because it is being forced from top down. from my perspective there seems to be an small more elite group of politicians/celebrities/companies/academia that are creating new rules for everyone else and pushing it through society when the majority of society is not on board with the new standards. i think that is part of the problem, its not a natural shift and i think that is part of why people are getting more divisive.

I do see that as a problematic theme in society in general (you might be interested in Michael Lind if you want a detailed analysis of this line of thinking, btw.) although I don't think Disney has really gone down that path yet - to my mind they are meeting the demands of the zeitgeist that already exists, not trying to force a new way of thinking on people. Depending on where you live Disney could be seen as just shockingly 'Woke' or shockingly 'not Woke enough' - the cultural divide between the norms of liberal campuses and, say, rural Appalachia are pretty huge right now. Given where the bounds of the Overton Window are at the moment, I don't even think they're even 'meeting people in the middle', I'd stay they're still staying more to the 'not Woke' side and only making changes where they absolutely have to without risking pariah status in some areas. That's why I said if they go any further with such changes, I hope they do so carefully and show they're doing it in a grassroots manner. To my mind that is the obvious fix in trying to be both more inclusive but not elitist - really show what's driving the changes you want to make, and how it helps real people.

 

[DCLcruiser]

i use the word forced because the jungle cruise ride having "problematic elements" removed is not something most people wanted or cared about. there are about a billion things in disney that people universally want changed or updated, instead of doing those things they are choosing to change a ride people like.

similarly splash mountain is a ride people like and is very popular but despite that, instead of changing a ride people dont really like, they chose to change splash mountain because they wanted to make a statement. that is forcing the change on people. stuff like that can be found all through society not just disney. webster changing the definition of racism not because there is a new universally accept definition but because thats the definition that webster wants everyone to follow. its top down which historically has always been a poor way to implement change.

What if...(Disney+ advertising here)... What if some people do care about it? The right thing to do isn't always the most popular to the loudest voices. What if making that statement creates a positive change going forward?

Perhaps Disney wants a little kid who has never been to the parks to see rides, attractions and messaging that Disney feels TODAY is more appropriate.

Let's be cynical and make it about profits: If kids grows up today, believing that it is wrong how Trader Sam or native peoples are depicted (cultures are not costumes), or wrong to go on a ride that celebrates a cartoon that is associated with a shameful part of our history, perhaps they won't go back with their future family 20+ years later. Therefore, by waiting too long to make changes, The WDCo. is hurting itself tomorrow.

I'm not saying we can't have different opinions or beliefs, but maybe the old way of thinking about some things that we know offend other people or belittle or made fun or are a caricature of cultures, isn't what Disney wants for the future. Just because we used to depict someone in a certain way, and "society" felt that it was ok THEN, doesn't mean that we still do or still should.

Museums/School are where we look back at our ugly past. Disney is for magic and happiness.

 

[rylouisbo]

What if...(Disney+ advertising here)... What if some people do care about it? The right thing to do isn't always the most popular to the loudest voices. What if making that statement creates a positive change going forward?

Perhaps Disney wants a little kid who has never been to the parks to see rides, attractions and messaging that Disney feels TODAY is more appropriate.

Let's be cynical and make it about profits: If kids grows up today, believing that it is wrong how Trader Sam or native peoples are depicted (cultures are not costumes), or wrong to go on a ride that celebrates a cartoon that is associated with a shameful part of our history, perhaps they won't go back with their future family 20+ years later. Therefore, by waiting too long to make changes, The WDCo. is hurting itself tomorrow.

I'm not saying we can't have different opinions or beliefs, but maybe the old way of thinking about some things that we know offend other people or belittle or made fun or are a caricature of cultures, isn't what Disney wants for the future. Just because we used to depict someone in a certain way, and "society" felt that it was ok THEN, doesn't mean that we still do or still should.

Museums/School are where we look back at our ugly past. Disney is for magic and happiness.

i dont think there is any data that suggests that because disney has splash mountain and jungle cruise as rides that their attendance has taken a hit or will take a hit. if there was i would not really argue with their decision to change it as it makes sense for them to make changes if that was happening.

you say the old way of thinking has things that offend people but the "new way" is no different, its offends many people too. i dont agree with your view that the rides belittle or make fun of cultures.

also i like the what if pun

 

[LittleBuford]

merriam webster changing their definitions defeats the purpose of a dictionary, its supposed to be where everyone can go to see definitions that we can all agree with.

This is false. Dictionaries are meant to record the full spectrum of how words are used, even to the point of giving contradictory definitions in some cases (the adjective “nonplussed” and the verb “table” are two examples that spring to mind). The revised (or rather expanded) definition of “racism” is consistent with how many today use and understand the term, regardless of whether you agree with them.

ETA: On the two examples mentioned above:

What's Going On With 'Nonplussed'?

Its recent usage is hard to shrug off.

www.merriam-webster.com

Table (parliamentary procedure) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Marden]

i mean its basic business to create a product your customers want so disney keeping the popular ride as it is, is not really forcing them to do anything. theyre an amusement park and can do what they want as a private entity but my point still stands as its top down change forced upon people that doesnt have popular support.

merriam webster changing their definitions defeats the purpose of a dictionary, its supposed to be where everyone can go to see definitions that we can all agree with. now its lost credibility to many and further divided society in general as we cant even agree on basic definitions anymore.

maybe youre taking the term "forced" too literally. nobody is being kidnapped by disney and forced to ride tianas splash mountain. its a forced change as it is happening because a few have decided that the many should do/believe something as opposed to a natural change where popular opinion slowly changes and then is followed by people like disney and webster changing to align with society.

How do you know the planned changes don't have popular support? Seems unverifiable beyond anecdotal evidence based on social media bickering.

 

[aliceismad]

agreed. i would just add that in speaking about how the paradigm surrounding racism shifting very very fast, it seems to me that it is shifting so quickly because it is being forced from top down. from my perspective there seems to be an small more elite group of politicians/celebrities/companies/academia that are creating new rules for everyone else and pushing it through society when the majority of society is not on board with the new standards. i think that is part of the problem, its not a natural shift and i think that is part of why people are getting more divisive.

I would argue that the paradigm has shifted amazingly slowly over the past several decades and has sped up more recently, not based on top-down forcing of morality but due to the increasing connectedness of different people and different societies. The internet, in particular, enables us to not only see the stories of other people but to also connect with them directly. Gaining knowledge and understanding of other people's perspectives and experiences in these ways have changed society.

I agree that the U.S. in particular has become more divisive, and I agree that some people feel things are being "forced" on them, but I think it's because our politicians have made us believe that we are either globalists or nationalists and there is nothing in between.

 

[rylouisbo]

How do you know the planned changes don't have popular support? Seems unverifiable beyond anecdotal evidence based on social media bickering.

Perhaps though that wouldn’t make much logical sense as the rides are two of the most popular rides Disney has so if a majority were offended by them I don’t see how that could work.

plus disney would surely have shared the data to support their decision.

Also there’s a little evidence in that the original change position to get splash changed had less signatures than the following petition on change .org to keep splash as is... so take that for what you think it’s worth.

 

[rylouisbo]

This is false. Dictionaries are meant to record the full spectrum of how words are used, even to the point of giving contradictory definitions in some cases (the adjective “nonplussed” and the verb “table” are two examples that spring to mind). The revised (or rather expanded) definition of “racism” is consistent with how many today use and understand the term, regardless of whether you agree with them.

ETA: On the two examples mentioned above:

What's Going On With 'Nonplussed'?

Its recent usage is hard to shrug off.

www.merriam-webster.com

Table (parliamentary procedure) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Revising a definition while it’s currently being debated by the public isn’t evolving with the times it’s choosing a side in a debate as a supposed neutral institution. A dictionary shouldn’t be involved in moral/political/social debates it just proves proular belief that the elites have bias and push their beliefs on the majority.

 

[LittleBuford]

Revising a definition while it’s currently being debated by the public isn’t evolving with the times it’s choosing a side in a debate as a supposed neutral institution. A dictionary shouldn’t be involved in moral/political/social debates it just proves proular belief that the elites have bias and push their beliefs on the majority.

The definition you disagree with is already well established and widespread. Again, dictionaries are supposed to record usage, not dictate it. It’s a bugbear of mine that people say “beg the question” to mean “raise the question” (see the link below), but I’m not angry with Merriam-Webster for including this definition and even giving it before the technically correct sense.

Beg the Question

It's not begging at all

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[DCLcruiser]

i dont think there is any data that suggests that because disney has splash mountain and jungle cruise as rides that their attendance has taken a hit or will take a hit. if there was i would not really argue with their decision to change it as it makes sense for them to make changes if that was happening.

you say the old way of thinking has things that offend people but the "new way" is no different, its offends many people too. i dont agree with your view that the rides belittle or make fun of cultures.

also i like the what if pun

Well, let's look at it this way, tastes change over time. If Disneyland was exactly the same as it was Day 1, or even the first few decades, DLR would be a lot less compelling to 2021 young families, teens, pre-teens, and younger. The parks have adjusted, changed, and added attractions, rides, diverse food offerings, characters, etc to match the current needs and likes of guests.

I am a child of the 80s/90s, I don't get offended by much. However, I had a different upbringing than my parents, and grandparents. I remember my grandfather telling a story about being in the Army during WWII and mentioned a "China-man." I found that to be very offensive in Middle School. He wasn't being racist, wasn't telling a joke or anything... just using that term to describe a person. His generation thought it was fine, I knew it wasn't.

Now, fast forward to a middle school kid or younger in 2021. They grew up in an even more open-minded, aware, diverse world of TV, school, internet etc. So, they might have even more issues with terms or descriptions or representations than I do. Again, cultures are not costumes (that didn't exist when I was little...but I get it).

Your data comment would be for current paying guests, who grew up a long time go. I am talking about current kids who will buy tickets decades from now. When they are adults, parents, etc. deciding what is appropriate for their children. That is when Disney loses real money if the ignore current open-minded views and don't make changes.

 

[rylouisbo]

The definition you disagree with is already well established and widespread. Again, dictionaries are supposed to record usage, not dictate it. It’s a bugbear of mine that people say “beg the question” to mean “raise the question” (see the link below), but I’m not angry with Merriam-Webster for including this definition and even giving it before the technically correct sense.

Beg the Question

It's not begging at all

www.merriam-webster.com

yea no, its not well established. it may be widespread but thats just because as i said its being pushed from the top down despite most people not agreeing with it. hence this whole thread of people saying different definitions of racism.

 

[rylouisbo]

Well, let's look at it this way, tastes change over time. If Disneyland was exactly the same as it was Day 1, or even the first few decades, DLR would be a lot less compelling to 2021 young families, teens, pre-teens, and younger. The parks have adjusted, changed, and added attractions, rides, diverse food offerings, characters, etc to match the current needs and likes of guests.

I am a child of the 80s/90s, I don't get offended by much. However, I had a different upbringing than my parents, and grandparents. I remember my grandfather telling a story about being in the Army during WWII and mentioned a "China-man." I found that to be very offensive in Middle School. He wasn't being racist, wasn't telling a joke or anything... just using that term to describe a person. His generation thought it was fine, I knew it wasn't.

Now, fast forward to a middle school kid or younger in 2021. They grew up in an even more open-minded, aware, diverse world of TV, school, internet etc. So, they might have even more issues with terms or descriptions or representations than I do. Again, cultures are not costumes (that didn't exist when I was little...but I get it).

Your data comment would be for current paying guests, who grew up a long time go. I am talking about current kids who will buy tickets decades from now. When they are adults, parents, etc. deciding what is appropriate for their children. That is when Disney loses real money if the ignore current open-minded views and don't make changes.

maybe, i'm not a fortune teller. though i can say that seeing the smiling faces of kids going on splash mountain and jungle cruise every time i go would mean that they are not offended by anything they see. so unless somebody is telling them to be offended i dont see kids growing up to hate disney because of things like splash mountain.

i agree with your examples and think things have changed for better but i dont think what your describing applies to things like these disney changes.