This is correct. The biggest criticism is Tiana being an animal for the majority of the film, which still annoys me very much, nearly 12 years later. But the film and Tiana especially is for the most part embraced by the black community.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
The very valid animal aspect aside - I appreciated that they added hints of the racism she faced - I know it was subtle, and I think some of course wanted it a bit more obvious, but I thought it was a good way to start the conversation with children, especially non-black children.
And of course despite her being a frog for most of it, it still felt like a powerful Black story (to me at least), frog or not, she is still a strong Black female, on a wild adventure, and I love the New Orleans culture and vibe.
Also the music is
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what makes Song of the South a "racist piece of media" more than other Disney films with racist stuff in them. I mean, yeah, it's racist, but what specifically is what makes people dub it horribly racist? The main problem is that it romanticizes what life was like for blacks back in the reconstruction era, right? I mean, yeah, that's a big problem, but how is it a bigger problem than Peter Pan's Indians? Is the plantation setting also a major problem? The presence of sharecroppers? I'm not defending Song of the South, I'm just legitimately curious.
I feel like Song of the South's being labeled a racist film mainly stems from Disney's hiding it and being kind of vague as to WHY it's racist, which causes people to think it's the most racist thing in the entire history of cinema. Either way, Splash Mountain and Song of the South are not the same thing, there are no plantations or humans of any skin color present in the ride (also, there's no "Tar Baby" either).
And I'm not going to bash The Princess and the Frog (I don't have a problem with the film outside of its being used as a weapon against the Brers), but how in the world do Mama Odie and Dr. Facilier avoid being dubbed stereotypes like the Brers are? The stereotypical "wisecracking sassy black woman" and "creepy black voodoo man"?
Tiana is strong, definitely. She probably resonates more with children today as well in comparison to the Brers.The very valid animal aspect aside - I appreciated that they added hints of the racism she faced - I know it was subtle, and I think some of course wanted it a bit more obvious, but I thought it was a good way to start the conversation with children, especially non-black children.
And of course despite her being a frog for most of it, it still felt like a powerful Black story (to me at least), frog or not, she is still a strong Black female, on a wild adventure, and I love the New Orleans culture and vibe.
Also the music is
She’s probably the only black princess Disney will create, so I’ll take her with flaws and all.
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
Maybe not. I could see a film based on 1920s Paris with a black princess "crowned" to celebrate some jazz music festival. (Think of the awesome music it would have!)
From the moment it was released, SotS was boycotted and has been deemed a racist film overall, so much so that Disney won’t officially release it to the public. There is literally no other Disney film in history with a similar legacy. There’s no comparison.
Portraying blacks as happy, joyous servants in a film, particularly in the 1940s when SotS was released, was dangerous for black people. Whites used fear tactics, such as lynchings, beatings, destroying property and business, and other forms of violence to keep black people afraid to step out of bound and keep them in their place. Some even advocated for the return of slavery for black people. A portrayal of subservient, joyous black people willingly and happily serving white people is the perfect depiction of black people that racist white people loved. Inferior beings accepting their lot and being okay with serving their masters. This intercepted the work black people and people of other races as well were putting in for rights and equality.
Things have greatly improved in 2021, but that portrayal is still dangerous, arguably more so than crows in blackface, as I mentioned some pages ago.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
It was normalizing what should not be considered normal. Romanticizing that which should never be romanticized.
Imagine a film coming out that portrayed the imprisoned, tortured, and murdered Jewish, Gypsies, Gays and others during the Holocaust, in a way that made it seem like they were happy to be there?
Everyone would be outraged, but somehow SotS is given a pass by many? It’s the same thing. It’s racist. It’s not normal.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Doesn't The Princess and the Frog suffer from the same problem? I'm not sure if it takes place during the reconstruction period, but a common complaint I've heard about it is that it portrays blacks and whites as being all buddy-buddy with each other (those two jerks who wouldn't let Tiana buy that building notwithstanding) when it wasn't like that during the time it was set in. Again, not bashing The Princess and the Frog or defending Song of the South, I'm just wondering.
No. PatF is set in the 20s.
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
Song of the South takes place after slavery was abolished. There are no slaves in the film.
Tiana was friends with Lottie, but she wasn’t necessarily happy about she and her mother working for her and her father and was actively working to get out of that predicament and afford to support herself and her mother. Not only were Remus and the other slaves (let’s just call it what it is) genuinely happy to be on that plantation, but Remus abandons his kin after he’s told he can no longer see Johnny anymore, which is ridiculous. It’s like his life and happiness depended on that white family.
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
We never got The Backstory of Song of the South. Really, we should be getting a Song of the South Cinematic Universe, not Splash Mountain replacement.
"I, I'm uh....tough!"
*Br'er Bear tries snapping with the gauntlet no avail*
"And I found my Laughin Place"
*Brer Rabbit snaps and causes 50% of park guests to become bees which all sting Brer Bear*
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
We need an FSU mole origin story.
josh2000
Well-Known Member
Many of the characters in the film are former slaves, without a doubt, and that alone makes the premise uncomfortable. They all seem so happy continuing to live and work on that plantation. That is romanticization of the reconstruction era south and that's not something that belongs in a Disney movie, if you ask many.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
Is the alternative better? To show the sharecroppers angry and not happy? Isn't a positive portrayal the lesser of the two evils.
I love the charm that the actor playing Uncle Remus has. I'm not saying it's right or historically accurate, but I think he really leaves a positive impact.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
They do say "Considering a woman of YOUR BACKGROUND..."
No, it’s not, because that’s not how it happened. This country has a history of re-writing history and trying to sugarcoat things already. Nothing should be sugarcoated, let alone slavery/the Reconstruction Era, both of which were arguably two of the worst times in history for African Americans. To paint it as rosy and sweet is disrespectful to the millions of African Americans who spent their lives in servitude, separated from their families, without their culture, and living in fear of rape, the crack of the whip, or a noose hanging from an oak tree that was awaiting them, among a list of other horrific and barbaric things, post-slavery included.
THAT’S more of what it was like. Tell it like it is. This is one of the reasons why we as a country have yet to make another round of significant change in terms of racial relations and social progress with African Americans and even Native Americans. The United States has yet to officially and formally acknowledge and fully admit to the list of wrongdoings against either group. We won’t own up to it. I admire Germany for publicly acknowledging their role in the Holocaust and using a large platform to admit that they were absolutely wrong for allowing something like that to happen. They’ve just recently made a public apology to Namibia and acknowledged that they put them through a genocide, which they absolutely did over 100 years ago when they slaughtered thousands of Namibians.
The U.S. needs to do something similar, but they probably won’t because they love to pretend like things didn’t happen and continue to fail to properly educate its citizens on various moments in history.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Well... there is the way it was made, the people who made it, the appropriation of culturally important stories and the the overt stereotyping.
No, the main problem is it depicts an entire class of people in a way they may not want to be depicted.
It was considered racist before it was even released.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
Got it, I definitely see your point and how a happy portrayal could be harmful.
I know congress and the US government have issued formal apologies for what was done to African Americans, Native Americans, and Japanese Americans over the years. Not saying it makes it right or fixes anything though.