Again, rather than deal in hypotheticals, I’d prefer to talk about what is actually happening. Some guests are made uncomfortable by the tribesman imagery. That’s not the same as being offended or outraged (I think the distinction is being lost in this all-or-nothing framing that you and others are insisting on). And if Sam’s removal and replacement make those guests feel more welcome, I’m all for it, especially given that the planned changes remain faithful to the ride’s feel and humour.The problem is that you can make that statement about practically every single attraction at every single theme park in the world. Someone will be offended by something, so you deal with it by making a change that might have offended less than 1% of the guests, if even that? And how many actually complained to Disney? Anyway, my contention is that Disney did not remove him because they thought he was offensive, but because he simply didn't fit in with the new story.
So are we now supposed to feel offended by this?
View attachment 546090