THR: Was Meryl Streep Correct in Calling Walt Disney a 'Bigot'?

[The Sisko]

The crows are terrible and so is Song of the South, but King Louie was voiced by an Italian-American.

 

Yeah, and Al Jolson was White. Your point is?

[LadySkinsFan]

Don't forget all the gay references in Disney movies, both when Walt was alive and the more recent animation movies.  Watch Mulan sometime.

[No_Pressure]

Yeah, and Al Jolson was White. Your point is?

 

I thought we were talking about Walt Disney being a bigot and casting black voices to play either uncle toms or super stereotypical sub-humans or idiots.

 

Or are we not or something?

[The Sisko]

Not exactly. In this case the race of the acting/voice over talent matters little. What does matter is the stereotypical nature of the final product. It's sort of like observing that Al Jolson wasn't really Black and asking what's all the outrage about blackface for?

[Bonez3]

I'm missing the 'racist' King Louie. I'm serious, someone needs to write it out for me. Why is it racist?

[s0crates]

I'm missing the 'racist' King Louie. I'm serious, someone needs to write it out for me. Why is it racist?

Well the music has an African-American sound, you might call it Dixie jazz. It also has scating, which is sort of old school beat-boxing (reminds me of Cab Calloway). Couple that with the fact that the song is about a monkey that wants to be human, and you can see why people find it offensive.

Here's Calloway's scat song for comparison:

Pay attention to the vocals about a minute and a half in.

[Larry]

I'm missing the 'racist' King Louie. I'm serious, someone needs to write it out for me. Why is it racist?

Now days, it's pretty much recognized that a lot of people thought of blacks as monkey- or ape-like. (Cue Howard Cosel's "look at that little monkey run".). Combine that with his rather black-like singing voice. And probably the jazz-like tune. And his desire to be just like the real humans.

Yeah, I could see people, applying today's standards, retroactively, to that portrayal, and objecting.

But, to me, that says more about the absurdity of applying today's standards to different eras, and to how standards have changed, than it says about the assertion that Disney was a terrible person.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Judging someone who died 50 years ago by today's standards in anachronistic and unfair IMO.

Case in point, I was recently watching the original series of Star Trek on Netflix and I honestly was surprised at the sexist and chauvinistic attitudes that were routinely portrayed, and yet by the standards of the 60's Star Trek was extremely progressive. Is it fair to judge the show by our modern standards? Hardly, because if it wasn't for the progressiveness of shows like Star Trek the standards wouldn't have been moved to the place where we can stand self righteously in judgment of those in our past.

[Bonez3]

Yea- I suspected that was it. I think there are far worse examples from this era obviously...

[s0crates]

I'm not as confident in the argument about Disney being a product of his time as many in this thread. It was a different era, no doubt, I just don't buy that as exculpatory.

I mean we could use the same reasoning to defend Hitler's plan for racial purification, as eugenics was the science of the time.

Or we could say the people who hung women in Salem were acting in accordance with religious beliefs about witchcraft that were commonly held during their era.

I could multiply examples here, but those should suffice. People do tend to act within the norms of their time and place, but using that as in excuse makes ethical assessments of history impossible, yet we typically do blame and praise people of the past (for things like slavery, racism, sexism, etc). Even the idea of progress (as in, we do better nowadays by being less bigoted) presupposes such an assessment of history is possible.

The argument Disney should be forgiven as a product of his era relies on the untenable assumption that being a product of your time gets you off the hook for your misdeeds.

[The Sisko]

I generally don't judge people from the past on this kind of thing due to the "product of their times" defense. That said, I'd be lying if I said that I don't wonder about the degree to which these products of their times fought against their inherent sense of right and wrong, compassion and just basic human decency. After all, this defense is used for a litany of things from regular garden variety discrimination as with Disney, to lynchings, internment camps, civil war atrocities and a host of other things that in many cases they had to know deep down were just wrong. As a country we pride ourselves on not respecting unjust or immoral laws and fighting to change them so why didn't many of these people go against the grain?

Again I don't entirely blame them but I don't just give them a pass either. Simply put I think there's a certain similarity to the Nazis saying they were just following orders and the "product of their times" defense. Certainly not always the same level of severity there but the general idea still applies.

*Edit* LOL, Socrates beat me to my argument!

[Larry]

I'm not as confident in the argument about Disney being a product of his time as many in this thread. It was a different era, no doubt, I just don't buy that as exculpatory.

I mean we could use the same reasoning to defend Hitler's plan for racial purification, as eugenics was the science of the time.

Or we could say the people who hung women in Salem were acting in accordance with religious beliefs about witchcraft that were commonly held during their era.

I could multiply examples here, but those should suffice. People do tend to act within the norms of their time and place, but using that as in excuse makes ethical assessments of history impossible, yet we typically do blame and praise people of the past (for things like slavery, racism, sexism, etc). Even the idea of progress (as in, we do better nowadays by being less bigoted) presupposes such an assessment of history is possible.

The argument Disney should be forgiven as a product of his era relies on the untenable assumption that being a product of your time gets you off the hook for your misdeeds.

Well, there IS a really simple way of dealing with your attempt to claim that well, Hitler was just acting normally for his time.

That is to observe that, funny, we don't see legions of OTHER people practicing genocide, at that time. (Although, granted, Stalin might also qualify.)

To point out that the Salem witch trials were rare, in Salem. But they were essentially non-existant, anywhere else.

It's not that hard to judge Disney, against the norms of his time and his "circle". Because the actions and opinions if those other people are documented, too. (Although, no doubt, not to the extent Disney has been.)

[Larry]

As to the legitimacy of the notion of judging people according to their day's standards, or today's, maybe a better way of framing the debate would be not to use the extreme outlier (and Godwin-triggering) case of Hitler.

Should the actions of George Wallace, and other famous segregationists, be judged using today's moral yardstick?

What they did, at the time, was in accordance with the majority of their constituents. And a near-majority of the nation.

Is it fair, or unfair, to judge them by today's standards?

[s0crates]

Well, there IS a really simple way of dealing with your attempt to claim that well, Hitler was just acting normally for his time.

That is to observe that, funny, we don't see legions of OTHER people practicing genocide, at that time. (Although, granted, Stalin might also qualify.).

To point out that the Salem witch trials were rare, in Salem. But they were essentially non-existant, anywhere else.

I think that by focusing on my examples you have missed the broader point I was trying to make. I blame myself for giving what my friend calls an "argumentum ad Hitlerium."

My point was that morality cannot be relative to history. Something is either right or wrong regardless of the historical circumstances. If we buy "He was a product of his time" as an excuse (rather than merely an explanation), then we can no longer criticize historical figures who follow the norms of their era, no matter how bad we may wish to deem those norms.

We ask questions like: Who was on the side of right in a war? Who were the good guys? Who were the bad guys?

If we adopt historical relativism, then the answer to those questions must be that the good guy was the one who was acting in the spirit of his times. With a little reflection you can see that this leads to some pretty absurd consequences.

[Larry]

Furthermore, it is difficult to explain progress in such terms. If historical relativism is true, then people who are ahead of their time must not be acting morally, inasmuch as they are deviating from the norm of their era. To put it another way, the fact that people are less bigoted today than they used to be cannot be called better.

Unless you assert that higher levels of morality are better for society. (Which, some people would argue, is the purpose of said morality: To produce a better society.)

You are using Bonetti's defense against me.

[s0crates]

As to the legitimacy of the notion of judging people according to their day's standards, or today's, maybe a better way of framing the debate would be not to use the extreme outlier (and Godwin-triggering) case of Hitler.

Should the actions of George Wallace, and other famous segregationists, be judged using today's moral yardstick?

What they did, at the time, was in accordance with the majority of their constituents. And a near-majority of the nation.

Is it fair, or unfair, to judge them by today's standards?

This is much more in keeping with my argument.

I would say that we should not judge Wallace by the standards of his day, but I would also hasten to point out that we should not judge him by "today's standards" either.

We should judge him by the standards of morality and justice, which are (roughly speaking) not temporal, but eternal.

[s0crates]

You are using Bonetti's defense against me.

I find it fitting considering the rocky terrain.

[The Sisko]

As to the legitimacy of the notion of judging people according to their day's standards, or today's, maybe a better way of framing the debate would be not to use the extreme outlier (and Godwin-triggering) case of Hitler.

Should the actions of George Wallace, and other famous segregationists, be judged using today's moral yardstick?

What they did, at the time, was in accordance with the majority of their constituents. And a near-majority of the nation.

Is it fair, or unfair, to judge them by today's standards?

I don't buy the contemporaries argument either other than perhaps for opinions. So I wouldn't fault Wallace for believing in White superiority. That's a position which has changed much over many years here and across the world. However since when is it justifiable to treat someone else badly because of that belief? I get that the "White man's burden" was used as a rationalization, but that still doesn't hold water if what you're doing is clearly mistreating someone. Again, outside of sociopaths, the human conscience makes this notion difficult to buy.

I give the near majority of the nation the side eye as well. The majority of the ME thinks Israel should be wiped off the map. Do we excuse them then?

[Larry]

This is much more in keeping with my argument.

I would say that we should not judge Wallace by the standards of his day, but I would also hasten to point out that we should not judge him by "today's standards" either.

We should judge him by the standards of morality and justice, which are (roughly speaking) not temporal, but eternal.

 

Your position might be close to mine, at least in elements. 

 

IMO, yes, there is an absolute standard of what is Right or Wrong. 

 

We might not know all of it, yet.  But it exists. 

 

But, as to taking the times into consideration: 

 

Someone brought up the example of the original Star Trek, a subject very close to my heart. 

 

Gene Roddenberry tried to have a female as second in command of the Enterprise.  (Number One, his future wife, Majel Barrett.)  His superiors wouldn't tolerate the idea of a woman in a position in command, and ordered things changed.  Roddenberry took Number One's cold, calculating, demeanor, and gave it to Spock, the token non-human on the bridge. 

 

He did manage to place a woman, and a black, on the bridge.  But only in the capacity of being Captain Kirk's receptionist.  "Starfleet Command on line one, Captain." 

 

He managed to insert TV's first interracial kiss.  But only by making the scene non-consensual.  Kirk and Uhura were forced to do it. 

 

He managed to create a team of astronauts who weren't all American.  But, they were pretty much all ethnic stereotypes. 

 

----------

 

He "moved the needle" of society, in a positive direction.  But there were lots of things about his show which people today might actually find problematic, maybe even offensive. 

 

Does the latter take anything away from the former? 

 

When we credit him for the good he accomplished, is it really necessary to jump in with "but, he didn't move things as far as we are, today"? 

 

Yeah, he only moved the needle a little.  But heck, 99.9% of society doesn't move it at all. 

 

Is the fact that he only moved it a little, really all that bad? 

[s0crates]

I like that example Larry, and you develop the thought well. If somebody is ahead of his time, or as you say, "moves the needle," we tend to think that is praiseworthy. So it seems context plays some role in our moral assessments.

Still, if we say somebody is ahead of his time, and he is therefore better, then we are measuring both the person and the time in reference to some moral standard irrespective of the time. (You seem to concede this "absolute," which is my main point).

Now as to how this all plays into excuse-making, I have no idea.

[JMS]

Um, yeah. You guys didnt know this?

Go back and watch some old Disney cartoons and you will some of the most over the top racist crap ever. And I thought it was quite known he was anti-semetic.

I would have said I dont know why Streep brought it up but the fact that many people in this thread had no idea shows that maybe she was 100% right in sharing this stuff lol.

 

 

IT was a different time.     Amos and Andy was one of the most popular shows on the radio at one time in our history.   Junglebook came out in 1967.     The country was segregated and race issues were treated more like they were in 1937 than they would be treated in 1970 nationally...    Hell man you ever gone back and watched George Lucas's star wars with Jar Jar Binks?

 

I don't condemn Dinsney as a racist for Junglebook or song of the south.   I heard Disney actually consulted with civil rights leader walter white and even modified the lyrics for that film based on the NAACP's suggestions....    Disney was a business man who was trying to creat art which reflected a culture which was deeply flawed.   It's great that we have made so much progress over the last 50 years.   I don't think it means we have to condmen historic figures who we not lucky enough to have lived in more enlighted times.... 

 

You want to condemn Bull Connors...  I'm right there wiith you....    You want to condemn everybody who lived in the world which condoned Bill Connors prior to him being exposed for what he was;   I can't go there.

[JoeWolf990]

IT was a different time.     Amos and Andy was one of the most popular shows on the radio at one time in our history.   Junglebook came out in 1967.     The country was segregated and race issues were treated more like they were in 1937 than they would be treated in 1970 nationally...    Hell man you ever gone back and watched George Lucas's star wars with Jar Jar Binks?

 

I don't condemn Dinsney as a racist for Junglebook or song of the south.   I heard Disney actually consulted with civil rights leader walter white and even modified the lyrics for that film based on the NAACP's suggestions....    Disney was a business man who was trying to creat art which reflected a culture which was deeply flawed.   It's great that we have made so much progress over the last 50 years.   I don't think it means we have to condmen historic figures who we not lucky enough to have lived in more enlighted times.... 

 

You want to condemn Bull Connors...  I'm right there wiith you....    You want to condemn everybody who lived in the world which condoned Bill Connors prior to him being exposed for what he was;   I can't go there.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/walt-disney-anti-semitism-racism-sexism-frozen-head.html

 

good article on this last month. I understand the "times" argument, but if you still practice and apart of it then you are that. He was a racist, an antisemitist, and a sexist.

 

Doesnt mean he wasnt an innovator and genius, but he was what he was.

[JMS]

http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/walt-disney-anti-semitism-racism-sexism-frozen-head.html

 

good article on this last month. I understand the "times" argument, but if you still practice and apart of it then you are that. He was a racist, an antisemitist, and a sexist.

 

Doesnt mean he wasnt an innovator and genius, but he was what he was.

 

?  He was a racist based on what 2 songs,  a few characters in the literally hundreds of films he produced?   I don't think so...

 

He was a sexist based upon a statement he made in 1937?  40 years before he died?   A statement while objectionable based upon modern viewpoints,  also was totally accurate in the time it was made....  In 1937  no animation studio's employed women as primary anamators... none...    So Disney is a sexist for telling a young lady basicly what she was up against...  Accurately describing reality to her?   No, I don't buy it.   It would be one thing if the policy was a Disney only Policy...  40 years before his death that would be weak evidence against him... but this just shows Disney was a company of it's time...

 

Anti Semite?   Not because he practiced anti semitism,  or because he descriminated against his jewish employee's... some of which were chairmen of divisions in disney...  His marketing director was a jewish fellow...     He was anti semetic because he hosted a Nazi film director a 35 year old woman,  before the full breadth of Nazi's antismeitism would be understood......    He further was anti semetic because he had some unsavory associates in the wake of a very destructive industry stirke in 1941?    Where is the track record?  Where are the racist remarks?  Where are the personal testimonials from the folks he offended with his views...   They don't exist.. because frankly his anti semitic track record can be attributed to nievete, good manors,  and being a pragmatic businessman.

 

The entire case against Disney is more about modern day political correctness and less about a fair hearing or fair judgement on a mans lifes work and legacy.

[Predicto]

Wait, people are claiming that King Louis was some sort of anti-black racism?

 

King Louie was Louis Prima, a very famous Italian-American entertainer of the time.  And the way that King Louis was drawn in the movie was based exactly on the way that Louis Prima acted on stage.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cGWY0KZ_D4

 

[youtube]O-a8kLtJSJ4

[Predicto]

Yeah, and Al Jolson was White. Your point is?

 

The point is that is wasn't based on or mocking African Americans.

 

(however, the crows in Dumbo  holy crud )

[Lots of good stuff about Gene Roddenberry]

 

 

He "moved the needle" of society, in a positive direction.  But there were lots of things about his show which people today might actually find problematic, maybe even offensive. 

 

Does the latter take anything away from the former? 

 

When we credit him for the good he accomplished, is it really necessary to jump in with "but, he didn't move things as far as we are, today"? 

 

Yeah, he only moved the needle a little.  But heck, 99.9% of society doesn't move it at all. 

 

Is the fact that he only moved it a little, really all that bad? 

 

And that is why George Wallace is a bad example.   George Wallace was actively trying to move the needle BACKWARDS.  So ye, I judge him harshly for that, and he doesn't get to use the "product of the times" defense.