[ SECRET POST #2598 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2598 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 031 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[truxillogical]

I'm...yeah, no, I got nothing. Pocahontas was a freaking trainwreck that they somehow managed to make even more painful by making a sequel where she does go to England and everything is spiffy and not-at-all early-disease-induced-death/forced-conversion-esque.

I'd show my hypothetical future kid most of the Disney canon, and maybe talk out the awkward issues like the Dumbo crows, but shoot, no, Pocahontas is just so much worse for trying to be "about" racism and just taking a massive dump all over history.

(Never understood why they had to make a "historical" movie anyway. What, they wanted a Native American princess but couldn't find a fairy tale from the Americas for some reason?)

[(Anonymous)]

Or teach your kids to be multilingual and show then Dumbo in another language! The crows were just dubbed "regular" in most languages. The Black thing is mostly in the English version.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL no. How about if your kid's multilingual, show them Disney movies in English and discuss the racism in them, and also show them a movies made originally in their non-English languages which have racist stereotypes of that language and the culture(s) that speak it, and discuss those too.

[(Anonymous)]

NA

As a language student, I disagree: dubbed Disney movies are awesome. When you are familiar with the story, you can concentrate better on the language.


Also, I don't think your plan of "showing racist movies from all cultures ever" would work: one, you cannot belong to every single culture in the world so you'd miss some things and misunderstand others; two, kids would be bored to tears, you'd need an older audience

about the crows...

[(Anonymous)]

How many 4 years olds can honestly connect the crows in Dumbo with 1940's stereotypes of black people, though?

Re: about the crows...

[(Anonymous)]

I certainly didn't.

Re: about the crows...

[(Anonymous)]

Neither did I, and I'm assuming most children nowadays don't either. Which is why I'm questioning the idea that it's necessary to have a dialogue about racism and racial stereotypes (especially outdated ones that you no longer see in modern media) to a young child in preparation of watching Dumbo, of all things.

Re: about the crows...

[(Anonymous)]

Or the monkeys from the Jungle Book. As an adult, I get why that was pretty problematic, but as a kid, it was just a catchy musical number.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I never got the criticism of the cows. Are they stereotyped? Yes. But they're some of the most positive characters in that film. The moment they learn what the poor kid's been through, they feel fucking awful for making fun of him and then turn around and try to find some kind of way to help him. Which is different from most of the characters in there coded white, like the other elephants or the clowns ("ELEPHANTS DON'T HAVE FEELINGS!!!!"), etc. They're the only ones besides Timothy who stick their goddamn necks out for the kid. And by the standards of back then? That was PROGRESSIVE AS FUCK.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it was progressive at the time. But these days, throwing in a character named Jim Crow and a bunch of stereotypes, even "positive" ones is generally frowned on. It's the sort of thing that needs awareness, if not necessarily condemnation, and that's why I'd talk with a kid about it. Because kids don't know, and that can result in them saying some thoughtless things.

Heck, I picked the wrong example. If I'd gone with the "Red Man" song from Peter Pan, maybe everyone would've gotten the point--old media is often problematic and showcases attitudes and stereotypes that we don't subscribe to anymore, and if you're going to show it to kids (and there often is a lot of really cool stuff there), then it's a good idea to have a conversation with them, on their level, about that.

Besides, I'd think you'd need to have a conversation with your child after Dumbo anyway: abandonment issues, torture, scary men in shadows, underage drinking, and violent hallucinations...yeah, it's a messed up movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. I guess my main thing is people keep citing the crows as negative characters who are terrible, when they're some of the nicest people in the goddamn movie to that poor kid.

[(Anonymous)]

I liked the Crows best as a kid. But they're still basically representative of a host of awkward stereotypes--jazzy, Jive-talkin' magical negro figures and all.

But a penny in the "Well, they're portrayed as nice so it's ok!" bucket.