BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
To be fair he seemed like a genuinely nice and well-intentioned person. But yeah, he did go overboard sometimes.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Miscellaneous Thought Thread
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
VJ
Well-Known Member
as someone else who knows what you're talking about, i honestly never understood that.. what's the point?
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
It's charming.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
Isn't that a racist term???
Is it? I have no clue
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
The irony here is that growing up, one of my favorite books at my grandma's house
was called Little Black Sambo. But I didn't have any frame of reference. I just knew
he got to eat pancakes at the end!
TROR
Well-Known Member
Would explain why he didn't like anything.
Interesting. I’ve never heard of the word.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
Haha, I doubt its in circulation much anymore.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
There used to be an entire CA family restaurant chain with that name, themed after the children's book's tigers. No one thought it was derogatory in the 60's -- we kids simply enjoyed the book -- but by the late 70's we all had come to know the origin of the name, and it just became awkward and uncomfortable. I don't think any insult was ever intended (and I think they tried renaming the restaurants "Sam's"), but the chain eventually went out of business.
On a happier note, the very wonderful kids' story was reworked a little while back to reflect its folk tale roots more accurately, and retitled "Little Babaji". Great illustrations and the tigers are as funny/scary as ever, so I was able to read the tale to my nieces without ever mentioning the now-offensive past title.
For anyone who's never heard the story, at the end the kid tricks the bullying tigers into chasing each other around a tree until they all melt into butter. Which the kid takes home to put on pancakes. Which is why the restaurant chose the book as a theme in the first place.
Last edited:
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
The crows have stereotypical mannerisms of African Americans, hence the issue.
In saying that, they’re the best things about the movie and should be included. Disney should consider putting up a disclaimer for their films as teaching moments. A number of their films have problematic scenes, but they shouldn’t be erased.
I guess my question goes deeper. Why can’t mannerisms of any culture or race be highlighted? Weather they are mannerisms of the minority or majority of that race/ ethnicity/ culture? Especially in a movie. It’s not as if Disney is coming out and saying ALL African Americans talk this way or all Italians talk that way. Especially today now that Disney’s representation of African Americans is a little more balanced with movies like Princess and the Frog.
Anyway, this is why Rositas voice at Tropical Hideaway is what it is. We re just slowly erasing all the character or diversity out of the world. It doesn’t really work in themed entertainment when you just have a few seconds or a short time to make an impact or you know... trying to entertain. Imagine Tiki room if all 4 bird hosts sounded the same.
Last edited:
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
I agree. He's harmless. I just think his pictures come out just a little creepy. Maybe it's the drool?
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Culture and race can be highlighted. It’s the way people go about it that causes issues. Disney’s portrayal of African Americans through the use of the crows in Dumbo is not okay and wouldn’t fly today (no pun intended). And it’s not just the crows, but also the singing black workers putting together the tents towards the beginning of the film...also not okay, but Dumbo is a product of its time. Either way, it’s unacceptable. The portrayal is negative.
The Princess and the Frog is an example of a proper and more acceptable way to portray African Americans. Other films like Dumbo and Fantasia, not so much.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
Probably the same reason, gay men are depicted at sidekick fools in Disney movies.
Yeah, when they announced Lafou would be gay in Beauty and the Beast... my first thought was how incredibly disingenuous the move was. In the animated feature, he's the comic relief... the oblivious fool who does everything Gaston wants in the most inept/funny way possible. I think it's important that movies become more inclusive, but there's a right and a wrong way to do it.
I don’t remember the black workers scene very well so I won’t comment on that. To me the crows are the best part of Dumbo and come off as characters that were free spirited, funny and full of character. Regardless, I appreciate your input and respect that you feel that way.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
I watched Dumbo recently... the worst part (in my opinion) is definitely the scene where they're setting up the tent.
As for the crows... everything in the film is a caricature. The white kids that attend the circus? Caricatured and obnoxious. The animals? Caricatured. The crows? Caricatured. That's how animation/art worked at the time... by taking real world archetypes and caricaturing them.
I worry that the trend of silencing past art that portrays stereotypes that aren't acceptable could cause us to lose sight of our troubled past. Judge art based on the creator's intent... not the 21 century interpretation of what should have been done. Keeping these films around is a win-win, kids don't pick up on the racial humor so they'll be exposed to the films that have defined American culture for 100 years, and as they grow up the films can be used examples of where our society was and how we've progressed since.
What's next? Will Wally Boag's exaggerated Mexican accent in the Tiki Room be the next target?
Last edited: