-
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
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
No. And both are far less offensive than Dumbo.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
I love the characters and stories and parts of the film are all-time classics. The rest of the film is just really boring. The honorary Award for Baskett was well deserved.
And I'd rather watch a children's movie that glossed over the trouble with post-Civil War sharecropping than Dumbo's actual Minstrel Show and singing about how Black Men can't read, write, or manage money.
Nobody is using Share Cropping hardships to harm Black Americans. Stereotypes about Black Men being unable to comprehend literacy and money management is still harming people in America.
As for Peter Pan, it was always the goal to have the Native American represent a symbol of safety and wildness akin to pirates. A fantasy for kids to play at. A dangerous tropical isle where there are Indians and Pirates lurking around every corner.
Barrie or Disney didn't try to present these people as people. They were props for jokes and sequences. At least SotS is based upon African Folklore and worked with the cultures it was representing as actual dynamic characters and people.
SotS is not based on African folklore. It’s based on appropriated stories made up by a white author named Joel Chandler Harris.
If Peter Pan and Dumbo were worse than SotS, they too would be in the vault. And yet…
As a black American, I take way more offense to SotS than Dumbo. Dumbo is straightforward with the racism. SotS tries to play it off as something innocent, and it’s the exact opposite.
If Peter Pan and Dumbo were worse than SotS, they too would be in the vault. And yet…
As a black American, I take way more offense to SotS than Dumbo. Dumbo is straightforward with the racism. SotS tries to play it off as something innocent, and it’s the exact opposite.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
Joel Chandler Harris wrote the stories based upon the folklore of the Slaves he met with. Sing of the South is based upon those sane pieces of folklore.
And the other films aren't in the vault because they are more entertaining and Disney continues to make money off of them. Peter Pan is a beloved character and MANY adaptations are now struggling with reconciling how Native Americans are used.
Dumbo is just a step below having the ringmaster casually use the N-word. It's mind-blowing how insensitive that movie is. Naming the crow Jim Crow is some next level "cutesyness" for a 1941 film. It would be like Disney setting a film in Japan and naming a cute character Manzanar. Who was played by a white guy doing a comedic Japanese accent.
Last edited:
Joel Chandler Harris appropriated the stories and made them his own. I posted examples of some of the differences between the original sources and what Harris wrote. And Walt Disney used his stories to create SotS. He did not seek the original African tales as sources.
Regarding Pan, one scene vs an entire racist movie.
Dumbo is upfront. SotS is not. If you’re going to be racist, be racist to my face. Don’t be fake.
Thank you, Dumbo.
BrerFoxesBayouAdventure
Well-Known Member
I want to see these, I'm interested.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
In the book and the play, the idea is that, somehow, the island (possibly with the fairies’ help) manifested the Pirates and Indians solely to be part of an endless game of cat and mouse to entertain Peter Pan. The Indians chase the Pirates, The Pirates chase Peter Pan, and Peter Pan and the Lost Boys chase the Indians. Every Day. Forever. And whenever Peter Pan leaves to visit London, the entire island falls asleep until he returns.
Re: Dumbo, I never saw the roustabouts as being all-black. Real circus roustabouts were usually a multi-racial crew chosen by strength and stamina. The stylized “raising the tent” sequence shows the men in silhouette for dramatic effect against the storm. I have always interpreted their song in the film as a self-deprecating song (based on actual chants roustabouts created to stay in sync with each other when pulling the ropes) about their profession, not their race. I always thought of them as a tight-knit crew bonded by their mutually nomadic, payday-to-payday lifestyle and their pride in being able to always get the circus set up and torn down on schedule no matter the weather.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I always thought the lyrics in the Song of the Roustabouts from Dumbo were meant to be ironic/sarcastic/bitter. They say they are "happy hearted" but considering the thunderstorm and intense music and hard labor I think we aren't supposed to take the lyrics at face value.
But I agree with the other poster that the more overt racism from the crows in Dumbo or the Natives in Peter Pan is easier to explain to a child than the racism in Song of the South since it is CLEARLY wrong. The racism in Song of the South is a bit more subtle, which makes it more insidious. The racism is also prevalent throughout the entire film. Due to the plantation setting and depictions of happy submissive Black people, there is racism found within almost every single scene in the movie.
But I agree with the other poster that the more overt racism from the crows in Dumbo or the Natives in Peter Pan is easier to explain to a child than the racism in Song of the South since it is CLEARLY wrong. The racism in Song of the South is a bit more subtle, which makes it more insidious. The racism is also prevalent throughout the entire film. Due to the plantation setting and depictions of happy submissive Black people, there is racism found within almost every single scene in the movie.
Consumer
Well-Known Member
Maybe I need to rewatch Song of the South because every time y'all get into this argument about "Which Disney movie is the most racist" and start talking about all the racism in Song of the South, absolutely none of it springs to my mind, other than the Tar Baby sequence (which really isn't malicious, just unfortunate). The way y'all describe Uncle Remus, I picture this sketch from Key & Peele.
Honestly, maybe that is how Uncle Remus is depicted in the movie, and if it is then yeah that's pretty bad, but the truth is I'll never know because I have zero desire to ever watch such a boring movie ever again.
Honestly, maybe that is how Uncle Remus is depicted in the movie, and if it is then yeah that's pretty bad, but the truth is I'll never know because I have zero desire to ever watch such a boring movie ever again.
BrerFoxesBayouAdventure
Well-Known Member
Remus is the only remotely enjoyable character in the film that's not a cartoon character. Johnny's mother is terrible. She's dismissive of what her child wants and is extremely condescending towards Remus and Jenny (the poor girl).
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
Most critics of SotS have never actually seen the film (not saying those on this forum necessarily).
A lot of the charges frequently levied against the film are flat out inaccurate, the most pervasive of which being that it depicts slavery.
SotS is certainly racially insensitive by today's standards, but when it comes to discussing the racial aspects of the film it's often treated in online discussion as if it's equivalent to Birth of a Nation or something in maliciousness when in reality it's nowhere close to that.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
I also wonder what people expect from a 1940's family film. To have Uncle Remus lecture the rich boy and teach him about how he and his fellow share croppers are abused? To point out the differences in which the poor white croppers and the African American croppers are treated by the law? To have the plantation owners pu ish Remus at the end for abandoning husband share?
At the end of the day, it's a family movie from a time before the Civil Rights movement. It does show the disparity in living conditions for these two different types of Americans.
Princess and the Frog is far more upsetting with some harmful ideas it continues 60-some years later. Take all of the complaints people have about SotS and add racist depictions of Black religion akin to 1920's Lovecraft. In a "Post-Enlightenment" aged film.
But it's a better movie, so it can't be as racist. Right?
AdventureHasAName
Well-Known Member
That's what all artists do. If not, all we'd have is documentaries and autobiographies.
Okay. So, again, SotS is not based on the true African folklore, as I said.
None of it springs to mind likely because the film does a very good job at cloaking the racism by including singing birds and animals and a jolly old black man who smiles and sings reads to white children in 1800s America. What’s wrong with that, amirite? There’s plenty wrong with it. As I stated earlier, it’s not in your face, like Peter Pan is or Sunflower and Otika in Fantasia. Making a racist movie that appears less obvious with happier images and ridiculous depictions of black and white relations in Reconstruction America is actually even worse and more harmful than something blatantly racist and in your face with it. It even took a second viewing for me, paying closer attention with new knowledge, to realize what was wrong with it, as I was probably 15 when I first saw it and was nowhere near as knowledgeable about my own history as I am now, and thought it was harmless. It is not. That is dangerous.
I’m not going to critique it because it’s just going to get deleted. However, if you’re interested, there’s plenty of criticism that can be found online.
shambolicdefending
Well-Known Member
IMO, Peter Pan is far more racist and socially offensive than SotS.
I've always believed it's revealing of corporate Disney's true motivations that they've worked proactively hard to bury the latter, while barely bothering to even glance at the much more obvious problems in the former.
I've always believed it's revealing of corporate Disney's true motivations that they've worked proactively hard to bury the latter, while barely bothering to even glance at the much more obvious problems in the former.
YES. Thank you.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
I've had this same observation. Really, it's Disney's doing- if they hadn't locked it up after it's theatrical run in the 80's, it'd likely be viewed in very different light. We'd still be cognizant of the issues... But the mystique of "Walt Disney's banned racist film" have made the legend of the films offensiveness take on a life of its own.
BrerFoxesBayouAdventure
Well-Known Member
Eisner's petty refusal to put a content advisory on the film is what sealed its fate.