Splash Mountain re-theme announced

[Brer Panther]

I've said this in another thread, but I don't think it's fair to say that Disney shouldn't be allowed to do anything else with the Brers simply because of Song of the South. Anybody here seen the short Mickey in Arabia? That short's unbelievably racist, yet I don't see anybody demanding Mickey be banned from the parks simply because that short exists. What about Californy 'er Bust and its offensive depiction of Native Americans? Nobody's saying that because Goofy starred in that short, he should be removed from the parks.

 

[WillWrambles]

There’s something I want to say, and I was going to say it in the other board, but it’s more appropriate in politics.

I’ve seen quite a many “Brer Rabbit stories shouldn’t be told because of SotS or because they were preserved by a white man” posts on this board. Take away the music, the character designs, the films, and the ride. Fine. But Disney still took on the responsibility of adapting these stories, rooted in black culture, and damaged their reputation to an incredible degree. Anything less than ensuring that future generations understand the truth behind these stories isn’t the right thing.

So praise the company all you want for destroying the last bit of integrity these stories have in the eyes of the public. But you have no ground to stand on criticizing people that like Brer Rabbit. You have no grounds to call them or the character “racist”. If you do, you’re acting like a clown.

But Splash Mountain fans who reject the idea because of “PC culture” and the “Libs”, do not rejoice. If that is your reason for wanting to keep it, you are also acting like a clown.

Don’t be a clown. Please.

Congrats! You are officially the most reasonable person on this forum!

 

[Incomudro]

I've said this in another thread, but I don't think it's fair to say that Disney shouldn't be allowed to do anything else with the Brers simply because of Song of the South. Anybody here seen the short Mickey in Arabia? That short's unbelievably racist, yet I don't see anybody demanding Mickey be banned from the parks simply because that short exists. What about Californy 'er Bust and its offensive depiction of Native Americans? Nobody's saying that because Goofy starred in that short, he should be removed from the parks.

I'm sure there are some people out there that would like Mickey or Goofy banned for those very reasons, and that is part of the problem we face when we go this route.
Nothing and no one is clean if we keep pealing away layers and looking for perfection.
We'll never get there.
African's enslaved African's before and for the transatlantic slave trade, so even African's may not be clean by the increasingly strident measures we are seeing.

 

[aw14]

NARRATOR: It was a matter of opinion.



The American Adventure opened in 1982 (on EPCOT Center opening day). The #2 rated television show in the country the previous year?

♫ Just two good old boys; never meaning no harm ... ♫

Loved that show as a kid, and I remember having the matchbox versions of the cars.

Always wanted to buy a 68-69 charger to replicate the General Lee

 

[_caleb]

I'm sure there are some people out there that would like Mickey or Goofy banned for those very reasons, and that is part of the problem we face when we go this route.
Nothing and no one is clean if we keep pealing away layers and looking for perfection.
We'll never get there.
African's enslaved African's before and for the transatlantic slave trade, so even African's may not be clean by the increasingly strident measures we are seeing.

I think it's funny that people act like this whole thing is just some nebulous crusade to cancel things and that we've no idea who "they" will come after next.

Enslavement existed in Africa, but it wasn't racially-motivated like slavery in the U.S. was. In ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, slavery was closer to "indentured servitude" in that it was typically in payment of a debt owed or restitution for a crime committed. In the U.S., human beings owned human beings. These differences don't justify any sort of slavery, but to pretend we don't know what people are so upset about is ridiculous. American chattel slavery is a unique evil that we have not healed from. In the U.S., human beings owned human beings (and their children), and rationalized it by saying that black people were inferior.

The efforts we're seeing now is to root out the influences that cause, reinforce, perpetuate, and excuse the philosophies, attitudes, and policies that allowed such an evil to occur in this country.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I think it's funny that people act like this whole thing is just some nebulous crusade to cancel things and that we've no idea who "they" will come after next.

Enslavement existed in Africa, but it wasn't racially-motivated like slavery in the U.S. was. In ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, slavery was closer to "indentured servitude" in that it was typically in payment of a debt owed or restitution for a crime committed. In the U.S., human beings owned human beings. These differences don't justify any sort of slavery, but to pretend we don't know what people are so upset about is ridiculous. American chattel slavery is a unique evil that we have not healed from. In the U.S., human beings owned human beings (and their children), and rationalized it by saying that black people were inferior.

The efforts we're seeing now is to root out the influences that cause, reinforce, perpetuate, and excuse the philosophies, attitudes, and policies that allowed such an evil to occur in this country.

Is racially motivated slavery worse than slavery with no racial motivation?

 

[LittleBuford]

Is racially motivated slavery worse than slavery with no racial motivation?

All slavery is bad, of course, but slavery based on notions of racial inferiority is, I think, particularly egregious, because the fate of its victims is treated as somehow natural and deserved. This is very different from slavery in, say, the Ottoman Empire, where slaves were not understood as inherently inferior (many grand viziers were slaves, and most of the sultans were born to slave mothers), and the children of slaves were freeborn. The descendants of these slaves cannot be identified today: they have long since been absorbed into the general population, quite unlike the victims of the transatlantic slave trade.

 

[_caleb]

Is racially motivated slavery worse than slavery with no racial motivation?

@LittleBuford explained it far better than I could, but yes, racially-motivated slavery is the worst sort because it is built on the notion that some people were less than human and deserved to be enslaved.

The racist rationale for slavery persisted well after the abolition of slavery in the U.S.—notions like Black people being especially suited for hard manual labor, morally/intellectually inferior to White people, or that subservience is their “natural” place in the social order. To this day, these are the lies that people use to explain away racial disparities, segregation, the wealth gap, etc.

 

[LittleBuford]

@LittleBuford explained it far better than I could

Very kind but not true.

I really enjoy your posts and am sorry that those in this part of the website will be swept away with the big cleanout today.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

All slavery is bad, of course, but slavery based on notions of racial inferiority is, I think, particularly egregious, because the fate of its victims is treated as somehow natural and deserved. This is very different from slavery in, say, the Ottoman Empire, where slaves were not understood as inherently inferior (many grand viziers were slaves, and most of the sultans were born to slave mothers), and the children of slaves were freeborn. The descendants of these slaves cannot be identified today: they have long since been absorbed into the general population, quite unlike the victims of the transatlantic slave trade.

I disagree.

@LittleBuford explained it far better than I could, but yes, racially-motivated slavery is the worst sort because it is built on the notion that some people were less than human and deserved to be enslaved.

Is it worse than gender-based slavery (where women have no civil rights and are essentially owned by their fathers/husbands/brothers)?

 

[LittleBuford]

I disagree.

Could you explain why?

 

[Incomudro]

Could you explain why?

Got to wonder if it feels better from the slaves point of view?
"Yeah, sure - I'm a slave... But at least my enslavement isn't racially based."

 

[_caleb]

Got to wonder if it feels better from the slaves point of view?
"Yeah, sure - I'm a slave... But at least my enslavement isn't racially based."

I'm not sure how helpful it is to try to grade types of enslavement. Slavery is not something any person should ever have to endure. I would say that slavery that had an end (as in indentured servitude, debt-based slavery, or the like) would seem different than a system that continues in perpetuity. That's why, around the world, people willingly endure enslavement and servitude if they think it might mean a better life for their children and families. But there is no "good slavery."

Distinguishing between "race-based" chattel ("ownership") slavery and other types has to do with the lingering systemic racism that endures well after the system is abolished.

 

[LittleBuford]

Got to wonder if it feels better from the slaves point of view?
"Yeah, sure - I'm a slave... But at least my enslavement isn't racially based."

In a system that treats slaves as subhuman and deserving of enslavement, the likelihood of mistreatment is much higher. I should think it’s worse to be a slave condemned to a life of privation and backbreaking work—a fate to be passed on to subsequent generations—than to be a slave who can acquire wealth and status and whose children will be freeborn.

ETA: @_caleb gives a better answer (and I’m not just saying that to return the favour!).

 

[Incomudro]

I'm not sure how helpful it is to try to grade types of enslavement. Slavery is not something any person should ever have to endure. I would say that slavery that had an end (as in indentured servitude, debt-based slavery, or the like) would seem different than a system that continues in perpetuity. That's why, around the world, people willingly endure enslavement and servitude if they think it might mean a better life for their children and families. But there is no "good slavery."

Distinguishing between "race-based" chattel ("ownership") slavery and other types has to do with the lingering systemic racism that endures well after the system is abolished.

We make a mistake if we believe that people who have enslaved people of the same race believe those people are the same.
We're really splitting hairs in determining and branding one form as worse than the others.

 

[_caleb]

We make a mistake if we believe that people who have enslaved people of the same race believe those people are the same.
We're really splitting hairs in determining and branding one form as worse than the others.

You're right that slavery de-humanizes people. I'm not saying that any slavery is "not so bad." I'm saying that the dehumanizing effects of race-based slavery (as with the nation of Israel or African peoples enslaved in the U.S.) usually result in enduring inequality, oppression, and racism.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Could you explain why?

Sure, if you're a slave (literally or practically), the thought process of the slave master is irrelevant. It's the treatment and loss of freedom that is the problem, not the perpetrator's motivation. Italian slaves in Rome in 72 BC weren't sitting around saying, "Well, that physical beating sucked, but at least it didn't happen because I'm Italian." Sardinian Christian slaves in 1795 weren't feeling better about themselves because the Libyan pirates that enslaved them didn't really care what skin color they had and were, instead, primarily concerned with religious differences. A black woman captured and enslaved today in the Sudan isn't relieved because her owner is black and it's not racial subjugation.

To the slave, the problem with slavery is the act - the removal of self-determination and the physical mistreatment. And it sucks for everyone placed in that situation (at any time in history), regardless of motivation.

 

[LittleBuford]

Sure, if you're a slave (literally or practically), the thought process of the slave master is irrelevant. It's the treatment and loss of freedom that is the problem, not the perpetrator's motivation.

But my answer to you referred to treatment as well as motivation, giving some examples I’m familiar with from the Ottoman context (which, of course, may not be representative of others). The most powerful grand viziers (prime ministers) of the Ottoman Empire were slaves. They had status and wealth and often married the sultans’ daughters. The sultans themselves were born to slave women who were elevated to the rank of queen mother. None of this excuses the fact that the individuals in question were enslaved as youths, but it does present a stark counterpoint to how slavery works in systems that treat enslaved people as less than human.

 

[WillWrambles]

This is the thread that will be missed the most.

 

[Mr Bill]

Is it worse than gender-based slavery (where women have no civil rights and are essentially owned by their fathers/husbands/brothers)?

Lemme check the Bigotry Power Rankings and I'll get back to you