I have some time to finally address this. This will be an essay.
I'll start off by saying that as an African American, I have my own issues with Princess and the Frog. I hate that our first and most likely only black Disney princess spends the majority of the film as an amphibian. I really wish they had used another story to base a black princess off of, or simply come up with an original plotline, but it is what it is. In addition, I don't appreciate the lack of a black prince; we have a black princess, but no black prince. Instead, Disney created a racially ambiguous character with a European accent, from a fictional country that is the result of two countries combined, Maldives and Macedonia, the former being a South Asian country and the latter being a European one. They could have at least thrown in an African country in there or just made him African American. Naveen could have been a wealthy African American man with some sort of business empire who, like Tiana, also came from struggles. Those are my biggest issues with PatF.
Going back to Tiana being a frog, it's important to remember that for the question above. PatF may take place during the Jim Crow era, but that actual story pretty much has nothing to do with that, as the majority of the plot senters around animals on a bayou, including the main character. So if the story is a fantasy that takes place on a bayou with talking animals, a Jim Crow narrative just wouldn't make sense. With that being said, there are hints in the film, albeit subtle, that the situations in the film are obviously due to racial inequality (i.e. Tiana and her family living in a poorer, black neighborhood, her father having to work multiple shifts to support the family, Tiana and her mother working for a wealthy white family, Tiana being unable to afford her restaurant and having to work two jobs for years to save money to put a down payment on the building for her restaurant, the fact that there are no black people at Charlotte's ball, Tiana being outbid by someone who is able to pay the entire amount for the building and the bankers making a remark about her "background," insinuating that her business wouldn't have taken off anyway, etc.). PatF is a fantasy, animated, Disney film with talking animals; I wouldn't expect to see lynchings and the "N" word in the film, but I am pleased with the details that were put in to indicate the obvious inequality. Also, Tiana is NOT content with her position in life and is trying her best to change her and her mother's lives.
Song of the South... I don't find this film to be extremely racist, say like Birth of a Nation. However, it has issues, just like PatF, issues that have been brought up multiple times since the film's release. SotS does have some fantasy elements in the film (the re-tellings of the Brer characters), but the main plot is realistic with live, human characters. Seeing that it's a Disney film, like PatF, I wouldn't expect to have seen disturbing images, such as the murders of ex slaves in the film. However, I'm not pleased with the singing, tap dancing, smiling-all-the-time black folks in the film either. That's not to say that there weren't "happy" 19th century black people in America. But the representation of that in SotS is overdone and too much for me. Unlike Tiana, Remus and the other slaves are portrayed as being quite content with their lives. Throw in the typical Magical Negro plot point present in the film and I'm even more displeased. To be fair, the film is based on the Uncle Remus tales, an appropriation of the original African folklore stories by Joel Chandler Harris. He created the character of Uncle Remus and made him a plantation owner sympathizer and an Uncle Tom. I had to read some of the tales for an American literature graduate course fairly recently and we talked about how Harris making Remus an Uncle Tom perpetuated racism and problematic ideals about African Americans being happy with being less than and ignoring the clear abuse to appease their white masters.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with Splash Mountain and would prefer for the attraction to stay. However, I understand why it's going and can't say I'm angry with its replacement (PatF deserves its own, original ride and shouldn't be shoe-horned into an existing ride, but I digress), given the lack of healthy black representation at the DLR (not sure about WDW). I recognize Splash as a classic and want it to stay, but Disney decided to build a ride based on a movie in their library that has been controversial since its release. In addition to that, they won't officially release the film on video or for streaming services. I had to buy a bootleg copy of the film to see what all of the hullaballoo was about. So Disney has no interest in having mature, adult conversations about the film, creating a disclaimer for it, and allowing the public to successfully access it. In my opinion, they should have never locked the movie away, but they did and now we are here. So they build a ride that's based on a movie they don't officially and formally want the American public to see. LOL. And now, 30+ years later, Disney's choices have led us to the end of Splash Mountain. If we're being honest, it was only a matter of time before Splash would be taken out. Disney has spent decades hiding the film. When the announcement to remove the ride was released last year, I had to explain to multiple friends what Song of the South was, as not only did they not know that Splash Mountain was based on a movie, but they had never even heard of Song of the South. Of course, they researched the movie, read about the controversy and how Disney is ashamed of it and hasn't officially released it in decades, and now they support Splash's removal. Imagine all of the other people who may have done the same. This is truly Disney's fault for having a hand in creating and fueling the stigma surrounding Song of the South instead of owning up to their film, allowing for people to watch it, and have meaningful discussion about race, slavery, Walt Disney, and many other topics that could stem from watching Song of the South.
Again, PatF has its own issues and is not perfect. But, as an African American, especially one who grew up without much black representation in the media I consumed as a child, I believe Tiana and the story in general are an acceptable source to use for a black representation ride in the parks. Looking through Disney's library, SotS and PatF are the only films I can think of with prominent black characters that are central to their respective films' plots (there is an ongoing joke within the black community about the Lion King characters being black, but they don't really count here). Seeing as Disney has no interest in creating and building original rides anymore, and SotS and PatF are the only options, I would support PatF a million times over SotS. Moreover, it appears that the ride will be picking up after the end of PatF, so there will be some originality there. I don't for one second believe Disney truly cares about the black American community. However, I'm not super displeased by this decision and will be in line to see what they've done with the story of our only black princess.
