Fantasmic
Well-Known Member
How...
HOW, just.... HOW?!
HOW, just.... HOW?!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Song of the South?
- Thread starter GeoDonJac34
- Start date
psukardi
Well-Known Member
Way to take that out of context. It's "OK" to others as in these sports towns have no problem with it, nor did Disney have a problem with Pocahontas where a whole song depicts the Native Americans as a "savage beast" that needed to be purged.
I for one find that a lot worse than SotS
Didn't take anything out of context....
And complacency in the name of a sports team doesn't equate to the universal acceptance if it.
psukardi
Well-Known Member
Turn on any Atlanta Braves game or Florida State Seminoles game. 10s of thousands of people imitating a "scalping" via the "tomahawk chop" seems like near universal acceptance to me by their respective fan bases.
ratherbeinwdw
Well-Known Member
It's sad that bigotry, racism, and sexism are now simply "politically incorrect". They are still bigotry, racism, and sexism just the same.
luv
Well-Known Member
Long no more.
Chief Wahoo hasn't been the mascot for a long time. Slider is the mascot. Old Chief Wahoo has been updated and made more cartoony, much like Mickey has done over the years. He is a merchandise logo now...and even there he is generally small and hard to find.
I am not sure what your issue with him is, but you haven't spotted him along baselines for many, many years.
Weather_Lady
Well-Known Member
I can see the value in this -- by pairing it with a historical commentary, Disney can turn the movie from an embarrassing reminder of what used to be acceptable and is now seen as offensive (or at the very least, recognized as inaccurate), to a "teachable moment" where the film can be appreciated for its storytelling, acting, and other merits, and still be criticized for its negative points. (Truth be told, I don't think most children would view it as attempting an accurate depiction of history anyway -- cartoon rabbits aren't real, so why would insanely-happy-with-their-position-in-life-African-American-Southerners be?)
The thing is, the fact that our country at one time promoted a "happy Dixieland" view of the old South IS a part of our history -- a form of stylized propaganda designed to ease the conscience of the oppressor, a tactic which has been used against women, religious minorities, Native Americans and others throughout history. Just because its use in our nation is shameful doesn't mean we should hide it -- to the contrary, we ought to rub our own noses in it a little. I think it's important for younger generations to understand how and why historical events get "whitewashed" by the media and in popular culture, and how films like "Song of the South" perpetuated stereotypes and views of history that are still persisting today. Presenting it to a new audience, in context, has not just entertainment value, but educational value.
Of course, that value depends on parents being willing to take advantage of the teachable moment...
100% agree...
We're sensitive about a group of people who brought from one land to another and forced to work under a horrible system...
the other group was driven from their homes, killed, mamed with disease etc etc etc
but, agh... just give em' casinos and society will be happy
I'm for equality, but for ALL people
We're pretty senstive about Native Americans as well. Witness the fact that so many universities have changed their mascots away from Indian-related names.
lol here we go again!
it ISN'T racist... double standard by the Disney corporation if you ask me.
Considering THE NEXT Diamond release... PETER PAN
The jist of this issue is that in 2012, when it comes to equality there is a lack of such between races. Insulting one race is a faux pas while it's okay to insult another.
NO STEREOTYPES here?
Plenty of stereotypes in Peter Pan. Both SoTS and Peter Pan can legitimately be seen as racist, and should both be seen as stereotyping the applicable group.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
yet one is celebrated... the other is band
THAT is my issue, release them all... if you're offended don't buy it
I'm a free market capitalist... let the market determine how a product is received
I think the "problem" is that it depicted slavery in a positive light. That's what is considered insenstive/racist/whatever word you want.
In Pocahontas, it was the villain that considered them savages, and the message of the movie is, essentially, that they weren't savages at all...that the invaders were closer to savages than the Native Americans.
I actually own a legal copy of the "Song of the South" - a VHS tape from the UK, bought on ebay last year for about 10$. Before I watched the film I would have agreed with you. Now I think if they ever tried to sell this film to the current market it would be very much a flop. The only market I can see for a new release would be the die hard Disney fans hanging out on forums like this - certainly not enough to make a DVD like you suggest a cash cow (even though personally I would love all the additions you suggest!).
I think I might come from a different point of view than most of the posters here as I am German and hence slavery isn't part of my country's history (even though we did have our own extremely ugly issues with racism). But besides the lovely animated tales inside the film (which were truly wonderful and are still very watchable today) the framework story was painful to watch. If it hadn't been my curiosity because of all the discussions about this film regularly coming up, I would have given up extremely early. I found the film to be filled with the worst kind of stereotypes - not only with regard to race, but also with regard to gender and class.
I do understand that a lot of this is just due to the time the film was made and just as a previous poster said I don't think it will be damaging to children. But I also think the story the film has besides the tales is far too weak to carry the film for modern audiences. I just can't imagine it being popular today. Some things just become old fashioned after some time and I think that's exactly what the "Song of the South" is. There would be no interest for this film if it weren't for that racism debate connected with the film.
The Duck
Well-Known Member
There's been a common misconception that Uncle Remus and the rest of the black cast of SOTS are slaves when, in fact, they were sharecroppers.
Walt could have removed much of the controversy by simply stating exactly when the film takes place. Before or after the American Civil War.
The events clearly take place after the war due to one scene in particular. Uncle Remus is seen leaving the plantation of his own free will and no one makes any attempt to stop him as a runaway slave.
Granted, the life of a black sharecropper in the Jim Crow South was hardly a bed of roses, but they most certainly were not slaves.
The original Uncle Remus stories on which the film is partly based, were written by Joel Chandler Harris and published in 1880. The B'rer Rabbit stories themselves have their origins in African folklore and were adapted by the black slaves while in America. One of the adaptations was changing the identity of some of the animal characters to more familiar North American creatures. B'rer Bear, for instance, may have originally been B'rer Hyena.
Walt could have removed much of the controversy by simply stating exactly when the film takes place. Before or after the American Civil War.
The events clearly take place after the war due to one scene in particular. Uncle Remus is seen leaving the plantation of his own free will and no one makes any attempt to stop him as a runaway slave.
Granted, the life of a black sharecropper in the Jim Crow South was hardly a bed of roses, but they most certainly were not slaves.
The original Uncle Remus stories on which the film is partly based, were written by Joel Chandler Harris and published in 1880. The B'rer Rabbit stories themselves have their origins in African folklore and were adapted by the black slaves while in America. One of the adaptations was changing the identity of some of the animal characters to more familiar North American creatures. B'rer Bear, for instance, may have originally been B'rer Hyena.
Actually, the story takes place after the civil war, so there aren't any slaves in Song of the South.
ETA: I see that The Duck beat me to it and even had a much more detailed explanation...
I'm with you as far as thinking Disney should release the movie.
However, free market capitalism would say that Disney is in charge of this decision and can consider anything they wish to consider in making it. They've chosen not to release it because they believe that (or are concerned that) doing so will harm the company more than it will help, because the market (broadly speaking, of course) will have a stronger negative reaction than positive. That's free market captialism right there.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Actually...not so much to ease the conscience. A good majority of cotton and rice planters truly believed that the slaves were content, if not outright happy, with their status, as evidenced in Joyner's Down by the Riverside. When Union gunboats made their way down the Waccamaw River, the masters were practically beside themselves with confusion when their slaves started running away en masse, taking livestock and furniture with them.
And if you want to know why "happy Dixieland" was promoted....it was an effect of how badly Reconstruction was handled by the government.
My mistake. It depicted the lives of sharecroppers during a time of rampant racism and sanctioned discrimination in a postive light. True, not as bad as depicting slavery positively, but still not so good.
Sorry, I did not mean to pick on you! I just read it so often when I read the post - should not have quoted anyone!
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Umm....you do realize the majority of sharecroppers were poor whites, right?