Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that it's very important that we, as a society, don't pretend that certain things never happened.
I've forgotten now what television show or movie somewhat recently was criticized for having Black characters talk in a certain way (I guess you'd call it a dialect). But here's the problem with that. When I was a child back in the 1950s and early 1960s, and my grandparents would take me to Florida ("old Florida") to visit my mother, I met Black people who talked exactly like that. When, fresh out of college, I moved to Maryland, and some of the grandparents of children I had, and other old Black people that I met out around Upper Marlboro did talk like that. I didn't see it as good or bad. I just saw it as the way it was. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, my mother's best friends described themselves as "Georgia crackers", so you know how they talked (they and we were/are white). So what? I loved those neighbors. Some of the most favorite people I knew when I was a boy. I didn't judge them by how they talked.
What do we want? To pretend that Black people who lived in rural areas in the 1930s talked like Sheldon Cooper?
I don't believe in censorship. The film should be available to those who want it. Disney is welcome to present an addendum to the film or packaging regarding how the culture has -- thankfully -- changed.
For several years I was on the committee of a very large school system (the 11th largest in the nation at the time) which reviewed parent/community complaints about books and other media that "they" thought shouldn't be in schools. I sometimes agreed that a particular book didn't belong, for example, in a middle school library. And the cry was, "You believe in censorship". No, I believe in age appropriateness in public facilities. One particular book I remember us dealing with was "The Giver", which supposedly had a "scene" in it that dealt with masturbation. I read the whole book, but missed that...it must have been very subtle. We let the book remain in the middle school library. But let's we hadn't. That still wouldn't be censorship because the book would be available in the high school library, in the public library, at bookstores, on Amazon, etc.
And so, if a particular person thought a certain ill way in the past, and wrote of it, propagandized it, peddled it, but was later rehabilitiated...you're saying he should not be allowed to stop publishing the material he now repudiates, but must be required to continue publishing a viewpoint he no longer believes is proper?
Let's remember that Disney owns "Song of the South." It's their property.
I think that it's very important that we, as a society, don't pretend that certain things never happened.
I've forgotten now what television show or movie somewhat recently was criticized for having Black characters talk in a certain way (I guess you'd call it a dialect). But here's the problem with that. When I was a child back in the 1950s and early 1960s, and my grandparents would take me to Florida ("old Florida") to visit my mother, I met Black people who talked exactly like that. When, fresh out of college, I moved to Maryland, and some of the grandparents of children I had, and other old Black people that I met out around Upper Marlboro did talk like that. I didn't see it as good or bad. I just saw it as the way it was. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, my mother's best friends described themselves as "Georgia crackers", so you know how they talked (they and we were/are white). So what? I loved those neighbors. Some of the most favorite people I knew when I was a boy. I didn't judge them by how they talked.
What do we want? To pretend that Black people who lived in rural areas in the 1930s talked like Sheldon Cooper?
There is a way to do it, and a way not to do it. That was discernible even in the 40s and 50s, if you examine black productions of the time.
I think I may have been the last group of people that saw the movie in a theatre re-release around 1986. I was about 9 or 10 and I only have memories of some scenes, mostly of the two kid stars, not so much the animated story characters.
And so, if a particular person thought a certain ill way in the past, and wrote of it, propagandized it, peddled it, but was later rehabilitiated...you're saying he should not be allowed to stop publishing the material he now repudiates, but must be required to continue publishing a viewpoint he no longer believes is proper?
Let's remember that Disney owns "Song of the South." It's their property.
I see your point.
But it reminds me a little bit of up-and-coming movie and television stars who milk publicity every way they can, but then once they are famous then want to be left alone.
The audience paying public ought to have some rights here, too.
I'll give you another good example. One of the great musicals of the 1940s is "Holiday Inn" starring Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. It's a great film. But I cringe -- literally -- each time I watch it and get to the part where Bing does black face. So let's hide that one, too. In fact, let's hide every film that doesn't portray Black folks the way we currently think they should be portrayed. In other words, wipe the history of Black actors from films up until...when? Certainly the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s. 30 years of Black performances wiped out. Bill Robinson...disappears. Hattie McDaniels disappears. Ethel Waters disappears. Eddie Rochester Anderson disappears. The Nicholas Brothers disappear. And then, we need to wipe out many of the movies and television shows with Black actors in the 1960s and 1970s since they were very often hired to play roles such as drug dealers and addicts, rapists, convicts, etc. Just wipe out all those performances. I wonder how all those Black actors and actresses would feel about having their careers evaporate from the history of cinema?
But it reminds me a little bit of up-and-coming movie and television stars who milk publicity every way they can, but then once they are famous then want to be left alone.
The audience paying public ought to have some rights here, too.
I'll give you another good example. One of the great musicals of the 1940s is "Holiday Inn" starring Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. It's a great film. But I cringe -- literally -- each time I watch it and get to the part where Bing does black face. So let's hide that one, too. In fact, let's hide every film that doesn't portray Black folks the way we currently think they should be portrayed. In other words, wipe the history of Black actors from films up until...when? Certainly the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s. 30 years of Black performances wiped out. Bill Robinson...disappears. Hattie McDaniels disappears. Ethel Waters disappears. Eddie Rochester Anderson disappears. The Nicholas Brothers disappear. And then, we need to wipe out many of the movies and television shows with Black actors in the 1960s and 1970s since they were very often hired to play roles such as drug dealers and addicts, rapists, convicts, etc. Just wipe out all those performances. I wonder how all those Black actors and actresses would feel about having their careers evaporate from the history of cinema?.
Most of them also had careers in the black cinema. Let's see about saving those, if you're really that concerned about them.
But again, I've never said they should be destroyed, so you're just straw-manning me there.
I said they are valid objects for historical criticism...just not entertainment for children.
You think the segment that happening at about 22 minutes portrays Black people positively?
The movie--on balance--portrays us as we at the time wanted to be portrayed. Some characters are more comedic than others.
Do you think every character of "To Kill a Mockingbird" portrays white people positively?
And did you know most black people like Downey's "blackface" in "Tropic Thunder?" It may be the second motion picture of a white man in black face that black people respect.
"instead", no...that's tantamount to book burning.
"too" is a better solution.
By the way, we'll have to throw out "Casablanca", too. It portrays Sam as a sort of servant.
"Casablanca" portrays Sam as a hired entertainer. You're getting absurd.
And you're still attempting to straw-man me. I've never said anything about "throwing out" anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
