Old Disney scenes make mom take another look

[MouseMan]

Griego: Old Disney scenes make mom take another look
January 20, 2003 - Rocky Mountain News

All this attention on whether a caricature of an Indian brave - hooded eyes, cheekbones like razors - is offensive as a school mascot has me wondering: Is anyone watching old Walt Disney movies?

It is only through my 4-year-old daughter, Des, that I have been reintroduced to such classic characters as the shucking and jiving black crows of Dumbo and Cinderella, blink, oh, blink, who will save me, blink? Let us not forget Peter Pan, a movie, which, quite frankly, I had forgotten. How about this ditty from the movie?

What makes the red man red?
What makes the red man red?
Why does he ask you, 'how?'
When did he first say, 'ugh?'

This is grunted by an Indian chief so grotesquely rendered - big nose and Neanderthal brow - it's hard to believe that just 50 years ago this was pretty common stuff. Then again, 50 years ago, American Indians in some states didn't have the right to vote.

I'm not suggesting we boycott Disney. On the contrary, the movies are telling - even valuable - snapshots of what society once considered acceptable. They reveal a time when entertainment consisted of vicious stereotyping. Oh, right, that's still going on.

Anyway, Disney was aware enough that instead of the Indian chief we now have Pocahontas, the beautiful, brave Indian princess who is in her own way a stereotype. And Peter Pan II, Return to Never Land, takes us back to an island where the Indians have disappeared, poof, not a mention of celluloid genocide.

Des has become fascinated by Indians. This started with Thanksgiving when many schools go through the usual routine. She came home with a construction paper headdress. She runs around the house pretending she's the good guy and if she is the good guy then I must be the bad guy, must always be the bad guy, and so she commands, "You be the Indian chief."

"Oh, no chief," she wails, hands clasped over heart, "please don't burn me at the stake." (For a while I was Stromboli, Pinocchio's hirsute, thieving gypsy, which prompted: "Please don't lock me in the cage." Just waiting for the day someone from Social Services overhears that one.)

You get the picture. My husband and I, in utter exhaustion, went along with Des' fantasies a couple times. Then, one day, my perky little girl turned to a stranger and opened up the conversation with: "What makes a red . . ." "Oh, look, Des," I blurted, shoving a magazine at her. "Look, at the pretty pictures."

My husband and I decide to fast-forward through the red man stuff. A friend recommends some children's books. We say, "Des, Indians are not like that, that's wrong." She says, "OK, now you be the chief."

This was not much of an issue growing up in New Mexico, the home of 22 American Indian tribes. The Indian of child's play was constantly counterbalanced by the Pueblo people we saw in town, from whom we brought bread, by the kids who blew us away in cross country. This balance is a little harder to find here where 74 percent of people are so-called non-Hispanic whites.

You may ask, why all the furor about mascots? Here's one reason. It's pretty easy to revere the Indian of the past and ignore the Indian of the present. It's darn comfortable to cling to an image, a perception, rather than to face the real thing. How many American Indian/African American/Hispanic children who don't fit the image hear: "Oh, you're not really American Indian/African American/Hispanic." (The worst perpetrators of this, by the way, tend to come from within the group. But that's another story.)

Learn to see people through the prism of stereotype and it's hard, really hard, not to keep doing it. Noble savage yesterday, drunk Indian today. If I write a word and ask you what group of people it describes, what will you say when I write: "shiftless?" Or "lazy?" Or "angry?" What about "money-grubbing?"

Stereotypes serve a function. They make the world simple, manageable, easy to define, easier still to dismiss. We in News Land, with our love of the extreme, the saint and the criminal, the gifted and the struggling, don't do a much better job than Disney.

For now, I'm turning off Peter Pan, finding the books my friend recommended, and today, a day that celebrates a dream still worthy of realization, I'm taking Des to a march.

__________________

MouseMan's Lanyard

~°o°~ MouseMan ~°o°~ TD Admin ~°o°~

Become a TalkDisney Premium member

[drcorey]

Disney does change alot of stuff, would children really want to know the
true story of Pocahontas, do they really need to know she was really only 9 years old when she feel in love with smith and left to live with him in england and died years later of a "social" disease.

[disneyaholic]

IDD, if Disney actually made most of the stories like they were written, they wouldn't be G. Another good example if hunchback of Notre Dame, which is a very dark movie and Disney did much to make it what it came out to be.

[CA Screamin Guy]

Yea, this is a long time ago - it is no longer an accurate representation of today's times. THerefore, when watching, we should consider the offensive aspects, as they weren't meant to apply to a futuristic crowd of viewers.

[MickeysGirl]

drcorey said:Disney does change alot of stuff, would children really want to know the
true story of Pocahontas, do they really need to know she was really only 9 years old when she feel in love with smith and left to live with him in england and died years later of a "social" disease.

:mEars: WHAT!!!!
Pocahontas was believed to have been born in the year 1595. Pocahontas's father was a powerful chief named Powhatan, who ruled more than 25 tribes.
Pocahontas became acquainted with the English colonists who settled in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1607.
The next year, Powhatan's brother Opechancanough (Pocahontas's father) captured colonist John Smith.
According to an account later written by Smith, Pocahontas saved his life by throwing herself down and cradling his head before he was clubbed to death.
Smith promised Powhatan guns in return for his spared life. Instead he sent many other gifts, but no guns.
In 1609, Smith was forced to return to England after being badly burned in a gun powder accident.
Relationships between the natives & the settlers deteriorated.
Several years later, Pocahontas was taken hostage by the colonists.
She was treated kindly during her captivity and lived in the home of a minister.
During this time, Pocahontas converted to Christianity and was baptized with the name Rebecca.
While being held in Jamestown, Pocahontas met a distinguished colonist named John Rolfe.
The two fell in love and were married.
In 1615, Rolfe and Pocahontas (at approxamately the age of 20) had their first and only child, Thomas.
In 1616 they traveled to England where Pocahontas again met John Smith whom she had beleived to be dead.
Before returning to Virginia, Pocahontas contracted small pox. Pocahontas died in England in March, 1617, at the age of 21.
Smallpox is a disfiguring, potentially lethal blistering virally transmitted infection not at all social.
Disney did not follow the true life story of Pocahontas. They took some liberties with the retelling of the story. As do many movies animated or otherwise.
It would however be very sad if the true story of this remarkable young woman who was credited with contributing to the maintenance of peace between the colonists and the natives were to be forgotten. :mEars:

[MouseMan]

Thanks for setting the record straight on Poca's story MG!

[MickeysGirl]

:mEars: No problem! I would hate for people to not know the true story. :mEars:

[MouseMan]

It's very easy to take things we have heard as fact when the actual truth is so much more compelling...and fulfilling! (Let alone the truth that many folks aren't aware of!)

[MickeysGirl]

:mEars: In this case the truth is certainly more interesting then anything I've heard that's been made up!
Pocahontas was only 12 years old when the colonists began to settle in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1607.
John Smith is the only person who has ever credited her with saving his life.
She herself never made any such claim.
Most tales told revolving around this episode in her life are greatly exaggerated, she was only 14 years old at the time this happened. :mEars:

[Disneyland1955]

I think that Disney should have realy stuck with the True story, You can't change history!

[MouseMan]

Though many people try, rather than learn from it hopefully not to repeat the same mistakes again.

[Eddie Rabbit]

Disneyland1955 said:I think that Disney should have realy stuck with the True story, You can't change history!

History isn't changed even if you make a movie that isn't historically correct, D55. It doesn't bother me at all that they didn't stick with the actual story of Pocahontas, the filmmakers made changes to make it more accessible for the general audience, like they did with the original book 'Notre Dame de Paris', and so many other stories.
But you're right MG, this doesn't mean that the original stories should be forgotten and replaced by the Hollywood equivalents.

[drcorey]

oh, ya, the real versions of lewis carroll will charm the public.

[MickeysGirl]

:mEars: corey! If you remember correctly Lewis Carroll or Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, (his real name) wrote children's books most famous were Alice in Wonderland & Alice through the Looking Glass. Is your "memory" of Carroll's stories the same as it is of the life of Pocahontas? :mEars:

[kida]

I just don't understand why people look for things to make Disney look bad. I remember when The Lion King was in the news. Some lady said that her 5 year old saw a word in the dust. My question to that lady is....why does your 5 year old recognize that word?

Why didn't they mention Warner Bros. in the article? Have you seen some of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons? Talk about stereotypes. Look at how they made African-Americans look in those cartoons, and the way they portrayed indians.

I think it's interesting to watch the older animated shows and compare them to todays. Not only has the animation come a long way but so has the content, story lines, morals and polital correctness. If you really want to get down to it, the movies reflect the time period in which they were made. I think that's really cool.

As far as changing history, I don't think that's such a bad thing. Pocahontas is a good movie and when you bring a child to see it and tell them it's based on a true story, they might think it's pretty cool and ask what really happened. I think it's a great way for kids to become interested in history.

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to be so long....