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

[Larry]

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.

I picked Wallace as what I thought was a better example than Hitler.

My point was that Hitler doesn't qualify for the "a man of his time" defense, because Hitler wasn't typical for Hitler's time, either.

I wanted somebody who we now condemn as wrong, but who was typical of his time.

[Predicto]

I picked Wallace as what I thought was a better example that Hitler.

My point was that Hitler doesn't qualify for the "a man of his time" defense, because Hitler wasn't typical for Hitler's time, either.

I wanted somebody who we now condemn as wrong, but who was typical of his time.

 

Hitler and Wallace (and George Preston Marshall) are all bad examples, because all three were active in fighting to deny human dignity for minorities (in their own ways and to different levels, of course).

 

Disney, I think, was just a typical white guy of his era, for bettor or worse.   

[Barney B]

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.

All true, but Louis Prima didn't get hired because he sounded "White". His music and his act owed so much to Black performers that he'd been invited to play traditionally Black theatres, and he'd also been turned down for work because theatre owners had mistaken him for being Black.

It turns out that Disney had originally wanted to cast Louis Armstrong as King Louis, but realized that casting a Black man to play an ape in 1967 might ruffle a few feathers, so Louis Prima got the nod.

Note that the option of having a different animal than an ape performing traditionally Black music was apparently given less consideration, as was the idea of having an ape singing in the style of Bing Crosby.

[Predicto]

All true, but Louis Prima didn't get hired because he sounded "White". His music and his act owed so much to Black performers that he'd been invited to play traditionally Black theatres, and he'd also been turned down for work because theatre owners had mistaken him for being Black.

It turns out that Disney had originally wanted to cast Louis Armstrong as King Louis, but realized that casting a Black man to play an ape in 1967 might ruffle a few feathers, so Louis Prima got the nod.

Note that the option of having a different animal than an ape performing traditionally Black music was apparently given less consideration, as was the idea of having an ape singing in the style of Bing Crosby.

 

I think one can take this analysis too far.   The fact that "Disney had originally wanted to cast Louis Armstrong as King Louis, but realized that casting a Black man to play an ape in 1967 might ruffle a few feathers" is arguably a point in Walt's favor, not against him.   The fact that White entertainers like Prima (and Elvis) were swiping black material is kind of a different issue.    How about the fact that the most noble creature in the film is the black panther.  What does That Mean?

 

(not much, I think... I'm just pointing out the potential problem with over analysis) 

 

Of course, the idea of having the ape sing in the style of Bing Crosby suffers from a different fatal flaw: it would be boring.     

[Larry]

Actually, I was rather surprised. I thought King Louie WAS Louis Armstrong.

(I've also noticed, from eating many meals at Chef Mickey's, at WDW, where they have a lot of Disney background mysic, that they play a lot of Louis Armstrong songs. I often wonder if the folks younger than me have any idea who that is.)

[Predicto]

Actually, I was rather surprised. I thought King Louie WAS Louis Armstrong.

(I've also noticed, from eating many meals at Chef Mickey's, at WDW, where they have a lot of Disney background mysic, that they play a lot of Louis Armstrong songs. I often wonder if the folks younger than me have any idea who that is.)

 

That's the New Orleans Square influence.   Walt loved jazz music, and particularly loved Louis Armstrong who he felt was one of the icons of American Culture.  Which Armstrong absolutely was.   

 

Armstrong used to play live at Disneyland all the time, and recorded albums and tv shows for Disney.  

[JMS]

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. 

 

 

 

George Wallace has alerady been judged...

 

 

 

 

I lived in Alabama in 1983 when George Wallace won his fourth and last election for Governor.    The overwhelming African Majority vote put him in office for his final election cycle....

 

George Wallace was never a racist.  George was a popularist..   As soon as the wind changed,  George Changed and became one of the biggest advocates for African American Issues in the state..    No scientific evidence of this of coarse... just my unscientific opinion based upon his fourth and final term in office....  He was a politician,  and was good at it frankly,  not good like in moral,  good like proficient... Not that most would go as far as he did to shore up his popularity..

 

 

In the late 1970s, Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness. In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over

 

Wallace's final term as governor saw a record number of black appointments to state positions. In his fourth term, Wallace became the first governor to appoint two black members in the same cabinet, a number that has been equaled but never surpassed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

[Predicto]

 

 

I lived in Alabama in 1983 when George Wallace won his fourth and last election for Governor.    The overwhelming African Majority vote put him in office for his final election cycle....

 

George Wallace was never a racist.  George was a popularist..   As soon as the wind changed,  George Changed and became one of the biggest advocates for African American Issues in the state..    ..

 

 

I agree with your take on Wallace, and frankly, in my view that's even worse.   Blatantly pandering to racism when you don't even believe it yourself is one of the most disgusting and cynical things one can do.  At least real racists think they are doing the right thing in their own twisted way.   

[JMS]

I agree with your take on Wallace, and frankly, in my view that's even worse.   Blatantly pandering to racism when you don't even believe it yourself is one of the most disgusting and cynical things one can do.  At least real racists think they are doing the right thing in their own twisted way.   

 

But that's just our take on it...   Most of the state chalked it up to him finding Jesus..  which means he'll go down in history as a victory for the J man...  A servent of the lord..   Another example of the wicked being reformed...

 

But I think we agree.   I preffer to have leaders who lead rather than folks who put their finger to the wind to decide where they stand...   Folks like wallace who will pander so far to the very basist feelings are worse than the true believers... Because they bring nothing to office and it's harder to spot them.

[Commander PK]

In my opinion, attacking the character of a man who has been dead for 40 years and can't defend himself is in horrible taste.  This isn't like criticizing Hitler, or some other universally accepted villian (rightly so) who killed thousands of people.  Walt Disney, for whatever personal faults he may have had, and whatever his motivations and beliefs may have been, left this world a much better place than he found it.   

 

I for one have lost a lot of respect for Streep.  Even supposing some of her accusations are generally correct, what possible good could come from tearing him down in 2014?  What difference does it make other than to smash another time-honored American tradition? 

 

I really feel that many in this country feel that absolutely nothing about America was good and pure before the election of Barack Obama.  Yes, we had our problems, but you don't get to be at the place we are in the world without doing some things right.

[mcsluggo]

I think its safe to say that Walt Disney was less sensitive on issues of race, religion and gender than would be generally acceptable today.  

 

There, was that so hard?   

 

Why do 70% of the people in this thread have to be 100% backed into one corner or the other?  he didn't have to be Hitler for that statement to be true, and it doesn't hurt anybody to point it out... basically it points how far we have come as a society. 

 

On the other hand the people that want to take today's litmus-tests for racial-(et al)- sensitivity and apply them full-force across all time and all situations are quite a bit too smug and self congratulatory for me--- its the civil rights equiv to the wartime chicken-hawk--- we all know you'd be audie murphy, bravely and sigle-handedly wiping out injustice with your righteous sword/pen of truth in one hand and a copy of to kill a mocking bird in the other, had you existed in a time with embedded and uncomfortable societal norms.   Thank you. 

[mcsluggo]

In my opinion, attacking the character of a man who has been dead for 40 years and can't defend himself is in horrible taste.  This isn't like criticizing Hitler, or some other universally accepted villian (rightly so) who killed thousands of people.  Walt Disney, for whatever personal faults he may have had, and whatever his motivations and beliefs may have been, left this world a much better place than he found it.   

 

I for one have lost a lot of respect for Streep.  Even supposing some of her accusations are generally correct, what possible good could come from tearing him down in 2014?  What difference does it make other than to smash another time-honored American tradition? 

 

I really feel that many in this country feel that absolutely nothing about America was good and pure before the election of Barack Obama.  Yes, we had our problems, but you don't get to be at the place we are in the world without doing some things right.

 

and , to be clear... i INTENDED there to be a WORLD of difference between what i said... and what you said here.  THis strikes me as being backed pretty far into one of the 100% corners.    there is a huge difference between saying "you have to take into account the realities of a situation when you discuss/evaluate someone's actions"  and saying "how dare you discuss/evaluate someone's actions!" 

 

its a fair discussion.  The fact is that he wasn't a saint (none of us are) and its a HELPFUL discussion to look at how a respected and beloved individual handled thorny issues in the past when he had very different rules and societal norms guiding him.   Understanding the good that he did, and other areas where perhaps he could've done better, helps us understand how things have changed----  and also how things have gotten better--- both as a measure, and the procees that MADE things bettter.    It also helps us understand how things can continue to get better still.    

 

however when we evaluate him it is simply unfair (and i think foolish) to pretend that the rules and norms weren't different.  and it is irresponsible, because it understates how much effort it took to get society to where we are, and how much more effort it will take to continue to get society where we want it moving forward. 

[Commander PK]

and , to be clear... i INTENDED there to be a WORLD of difference between what i said... and what you said here.  THis strikes me as being backed pretty far into one of the 100% corners.    there is a huge difference between saying "you have to take into account the realities of a situation when you discuss/evaluate someone's actions"  and saying "how dare you discuss/evaluate someone's actions!" 

 

its a fair discussion.  The fact is that he wasn't a saint (none of us are) and its a HELPFUL discussion to look at how a respected and beloved individual handled thorny issues in the past when he had very different rules and societal norms guiding him.   Understanding the good that he did, and other areas where perhaps he could've done better, helps us understand how things have changed----  and also how things have gotten better--- both as a measure, and the procees that MADE things bettter.    It also helps us understand how things can continue to get better still.    

 

however when we evaluate him it is simply unfair (and i think foolish) to pretend that the rules and norms weren't different.  and it is irresponsible, because it understates how much effort it took to get society to where we are, and how much more effort it will take to continue to get society where we want it moving forward. 

 

My point, was not that we cannot evaluate people who died 40 years ago and say...yeah in hindsight, they were this or they were that.  Why use such vitriol to describe him? 

 

It is not necessary in my opinion to destroy everything many of us hold dear, in order to progress as a society. 

 

Again, I think what she did was in horrible taste.  The discussion may be a legitimate discussion, but what is the endgame?  What is the point?  To expose another 20th century white male (demon) as being a bigoted, sexist, racist, dinosaur? 

 

What benefit to our culture and society in 2014 will come from tearing down Walt Disney? 

[s0crates]

What benefit to our culture and society in 2014 will come from tearing down Walt Disney?

Truth and reconciliation?

[The Sisko]

Not whitewashing history?

[Commander PK]

Truth and reconciliation?

 

what truth?  That the man wasn't perfect.  Find me one who is perfect.  For whatever Walt Disney's faults might have been, he left the world a much better place than he found it and he does not deserve to have his name dragged through the mud without an opportunity to defend himself 40 years after his death.  I find the current need in America to rewrite every aspect of our history very disturbing.  Everything always has to have a "yes...but..."  Why can't we just leave some things alone.  

 

There isn't a man anywhere in history who if you look hard enough you will not find some faults or mistakes.  

 

Again I ask the question, what difference does it make to know that Walt Disney had some faults now?  Did Meryl Streep do society some great service by defaming the man in public?

[s0crates]

what truth? That the man wasn't perfect. Find me one who is perfect. For whatever Walt Disney's faults might have been, he left the world a much better place than he found it and he does not deserve to have his name dragged through the mud without an opportunity to defend himself 40 years after his death. I find the current need in America to rewrite every aspect of our history very disturbing. Everything always has to have a "yes...but..." Why can't we just leave some things alone.

There isn't a man anywhere in history who if you look hard enough you will not find some faults or mistakes.

Again I ask the question, what difference does it make to know that Walt Disney had some faults now? Did Meryl Streep do society some great service by defaming the man in public?

I understood the point the first time you made it, I just disagree. I think the truth matters more than protecting the image of a historical figure. History should be about facts, not myths. The difference it makes is one of being correct or incorrect.

Longfellow wrote a lovely poem about Paul Revere, but I would like to know if Revere actually sat on his butt while a guy named Gallows made the midnight ride.

Jefferson wrote that it is "self evident" that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." It matters to me that the man who wrote that owned slaves and took one as a mistress.

You cannot just omit parts of history because they make someone you hold sacred look bad, if you do that it becomes mythology.

[Predicto]

You cannot just omit parts of history because they make someone you hold sacred look bad, if you do that it becomes mythology.

 

Agreed.  As an example, I respect the hell out of our Founding Fathers and what they accomplished, but it is not healthy to take that respect so far that it becomes a form of worship.   When you do that, people stop thinking and just say "we need to do what the founding fathers wanted" (which, of course, they interpret as whatever they themselves want).  They talk about the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, when in fact the Founding Fathers disagreed on all sorts of things, and didn't even think about lots of other things.  The greatest virtue of the Founding Fathers was their ability to compromise, and to fudge the language to cover lots of potential different interpretations of controversial things, so as to get enough concensus to allow for the ultimate goal of creating a government to be accomplished. 

 

You see this kind of shallow worshipful thinking with the Tea Partiers, who repeat mantras about the Founding Fathers that are really nothing but slogans invented by Rush Limbaugh.   Compromise is forbidden because it would be sort of like going against the word of God (the American "gods" being the Founding Fathers)..

 

Generally speaking, historical mythology is not healthy.   

[JMS]

I understood the point the first time you made it, I just disagree. I think the truth matters more than protecting the image of a historical figure. History should be about facts, not myths. The difference it makes is one of being correct or incorrect.

Longfellow wrote a lovely poem about Paul Revere, but I would like to know if Revere actually sat on his butt while a guy named Gallows made the midnight ride.

Jefferson wrote that it is "self evident" that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." It matters to me that the man who wrote that owned slaves and took one as a mistress.

You cannot just omit parts of history because they make someone you hold sacred look bad, if you do that it becomes mythology.

 

 

I think truth matters too.  I agree with you if Disney had a history of being an anti semite as did Henry Ford and Joseph Kennedy..  He certainly should be exposed, discussed, understood etc...   But he didn't.    Zero history....

 

What he had was two isolated incidents,   which when looked at individually from a modern perspective.. bending over backwards...  through a magnifined glass,  in a vacume.. were anti semetic...   But if look with the broad vision of his collective history.. were not.

 

(1) A meeting in the late 1930's with a NAZI (35 year old chick) director which is only unfortunate in the light of informaiton Disney didn't have..   A meeting a leeding Jewish studio owner also had with the same director during the same junket...  A classic nothing burger.

 

(2) Again prior to the modern sensitivity to anti semitism;   In 1941 after a huge labor strike which hit the Disney Studio hard...  Disney created and supported a group which lobbied congress trying to get communists out of the union which had been giving him trouble...   The group was anti semetic,  or targeted recent jewish immigrants from communist/ socialist countries who Disney blamed for the labor troubles....   So here from a modern perspective Disney was kind of anti semetic by proxi perhaps......   In disney's time this could be viewed as hard nosed pragmatic busienss policy.. and anti communist...

 

There is no history here of anti semitism,  or masoginistic behavior...  or even racial prejudice....     There is nothing here to hang any of those charges on him..

[JMS]

 They talk about the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, when in fact the Founding Fathers disagreed on all sorts of things, and didn't even think about lots of other things.    

 

I would argue they didn't disagree on "all sorts of things",  I would ague they disagreed on nearly everything...   If you ever read "Plain Honest Men" by Richard Beeman.   On the writing of the US Constution...    you would be amaized...

 

(1) Most of the constitutional deligates from the 13 states didn't even show up for most of the discussions...  Particularly absent were representatives from Rhode Island because their state refused to pay their represenatives expenses... So they just stayed home.   meeting after meeting after meeting.   Many states didn't have representatives at specific meetings for the same reason..  But Rhode Island pretty much missed the entire convention.

 

The convention was in philidelphia and the states closest to the convention were the ones who attended most of the meetings...  James Madison was especially attendant and lamented on the fact nobody was even showing up.

 

(2) Also a problem was consistant representation over the 116 days...  some states changed out there  represenatatives a few times during the conventions...  So one day you had an agreement.. the next day a different guy was there and he disagreed.

 

Number of different represenatives by state at the 116 day Convention.. each state was supposed to have 2 reps..    New York only had 1... Pennsylvansia had  8.    New Hampsure had 2 guys sign the document but there represenatives pretty much boycotted the convention.

 

 

 

Connecticut       2

Deleware           5

Georgia             2

Maryland           3

Massachusetts  2

New Hampsure 2

New Jersey       4

New York          1

North Carolina   3

Pensylvania       8

South Carolina   4

Virginia               3

 

 

 

 

 

(4)  In the discussions among those who did show up.. they spent months and months tweeking language in order to mean different things to different people..   So two guys who disagreed on the meeting could read the same sentence and claim it conformed to hteir meaning.

 

 

 

 

Among the few things the founding fathers did agree on is they didn't trust the people to govern themselves.    They thought the people were too flighty.. too prone to making uninformed decisions,   too prone to trampling on the rights of an unpopular minority...   Which is why the founding fathers purposely did not create a democracy... but a republic.. a constitutional republic designed to restrict not just any branch of government,  but to literally restrict the ability of the people..     The founding fathers didn't even trust the people to vote on the President...  Presidents were elected by Senators... 

 

 

 The greatest virtue of the Founding Fathers was their ability to compromise, and to fudge the language to cover lots of potential different interpretations of controversial things, so as to get enough concensus to allow for the ultimate goal of creating a government to be accomplished.

 

 

I would say the greatest virtue of the founding fathers were they didn't trust anybody and designed a system to basically gridlock itself except in the presense of unifying events....    I think that along with their concern for minority,  awareness of the danger of tiranny of the majority,   were their primary unifying theemes.

 

 

You see this kind of shallow worshipful thinking with the Tea Partiers, who repeat mantras about the Founding Fathers that are really nothing but slogans invented by Rush Limbaugh. Compromise is forbidden because it would be sort of like going against the word of God (the American "gods" being the Founding Fathers)..

 

It is ignorance of any rudimentary understanding of what the founding fathers opinions really were...    Hell Thomas Jefferson thought the Constitution should be entirely rewritten every 19 years or so...   He didn't think one generation should craft such a document for future generations.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

[JoeWolf990]

Abigail Disney, Disney's grandniece, agrees with Streep

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/relative-says-she-believes-walt-disney-racist-170300571.html

[Riggo-toni]

Who the hell is Gerbels?

Richard Gere's choice for best supporting actor.

[Riggo-toni]

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/news/was-meryl-streep-correct-calling-669589

This article puts this debate in good context.